The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBirth control controversy erupts anew
by Robert McClory on Feb. 17, 2012
The controversy over the Catholic bishops and the Obama mandate has spawned a veritable Pandora's Box of discussion and argument far beyond anything the bishops expected.
In an especially perceptive online New York Times essay, Gary Gutting, a Catholic and a philosopher, contends that the bishops are wrong in claiming birth control is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church. There may have been a time, he says, "when the vast majority of Catholics accepted the bishops as having an absolute right to define theological and ethical doctrines. Those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. Most Catholics ... now reserve the right to reject doctrines ... and to interpret in their own way the doctrines they do accept."
"The ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer," Gutting says.
"It follows that there is no alternative to accepting the members ... as themselves the only legitimate source of the decision to accept their leaders as authorized by God."
Since 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control and 78 percent of Catholics think a good Catholic can reject the bishops' teaching on this matter, says Gutting, "the bishops' claim to authority in this matter has been undermined. ... The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church."
When do they tag the Credo in
When do they tag the Credo in unum Deum with the proviso, " . . .and I refuse to use any contraceptive device as an exercise of my religious freedom, and I refuse to permit any insurance provider to provide anyone else with such devices no matter how necessary?"
When did this become such a tenet of our Faith as affect our presidential elections? Does this interdict trump the free will dogma?
Since when does anything cloud our exercise of individual free will? Since wojo?
Why?
Could the anglophone American bishops have made my Holy Mother Church any more of a ridiculous laughing stock among the nations?
And didn't ratzo okay the use of condoms among men in the Peter Seewald Interviews published a few years back? Or was it in Africa?
NCR reported something along that line . . .
Were we supposed to forget that now?
Like we are supposed to forget our free will?
just asking . . .
Then why have bishops at all?
Then why have bishops at all? Are Catholics to settle for "BINO's" - "Bishops In Name Only" - like Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Methodists are saddled with, no more capable of resisting the currents of culture than well-oiled weather vanes? No thanks, I'll join the Eastern Orthodox. At least they know what the believe and why.
seeing the wojo-ratzo
seeing the wojo-ratzo generation of bishops, the answer can only be yes, and the more silent the better.
like in the old days when they were absolutely unheard and unseen.
modern communication technologies serves the fascist project well.
what do we believe?
Love thy enemy and do good to those who harm you.
But these anglophone American bishops harm our Holy Mother Church.
and the poor Pilgrim People of God.
Regarding: "Then why have
Regarding: "Then why have bishops at all?"
- To teach, sanctify, and govern. By govern is meant govern the institutional church, not the domestic church or secular society. By teach is meant to teach the faith which is recognized by the faithful / Body of Christ. By teach is meant to teach the faith that is known by that same Body of Christ.
I agree with Mr. Gutting. If
I agree with Mr. Gutting. If an overwhelming sense of the faithful is that the Bishops are wrong then they are wrong. Humanae Vitae is internally inconsistent and not true in all situations therefore it is wrong.
"Over the pope as the
"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience,which must be obeyed above all else, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority..."
Some wild-eyed liberal priest or writer? Nope, a cleric named Ratzinger in 1968 (Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II).
It's strange that the clergy and hierarchy absolutely ignore a past statement from our Pope, but then, so does he.
One MUST follow one's
One MUST follow one's INFORMED conscience. However, if my conscience tells me that the New Testament is wrong, the creeds are wrong, and the like, I must follow my conscience—but out of the Catholic Church. Many Nazis followed their conscience. Very strange that contemporary sensus fidelium is closer to the left wing of the Democratic party that the Church's official teaching authority.
Here we go again... Godwin's
Here we go again... Godwin's Law strikes!... I don't think we have beaten the record yet. I saw Nazis mentioned in the first comment out somewhere. Guess some folks are going to have to try harder!
Don't know Godwin's law? Google it.
--Andy Jo--
Silence in the face of great
Silence in the face of great error does not correct the error. Neither does leaving. There is a great love and respect for the message of Jesus and the celebration of his life that many of us find in the Catholic Church. That is why the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the deveoped world take birth control and stay in the Church.
The bindings of the faithful to the Church have been loosened by the sins and errors of those who lead the Church. But we hold on because we know how great she could be. In some ways, it is the laity now, trying to be the parent to the child, to introduce the child to the world as it is lived in today. The message of God and his love has not changed but how it is expressed and revealed in the world has.
It is so terribly hard to get the Church to listen. But we love the Church enough to try. Many of us have lost our siblings and children to other faiths because this Church that cannot listen to the sense of the faithful, the Voice of the Holy Spirit. We don't give up -------------yet.
So very, very true. Born,
So very, very true. Born, raised, educated, and still a practicing Catholic I have seen half my family leave the church. Pope Paul the II did not speak from the seat of Peter regarding birth control as a mater of infallibility, which means we must seriously consider what he said and then make a conscientious decision. When the vast majority of Cathoic women have decided to use birth control, the church should recognize that a huge percentage of the magesterium disagree - not because they are selfish, but because they want to be able to take care of the family they already have and love. As someone who values her faith, and church, I hope that our leadership begins to realize that they need to be open to what real life is for their membership. Jesus Christ is our core value. Where in the New Testament did he condemn responsible birth control?
If last week's SEX ABUSE
If last week's SEX ABUSE SUMMIT had been more of an overwhelming success, I'm just wondering if the USCCB would have cranked up the volume on CONTRACEPTION this loud in its aftermath?
Gutting *might* have a point
Gutting *might* have a point if the CC were unknown outside the US - for then 78 percent of Catholics in the CC in the US, would be 78 percent of Catholics in the CC. The CC is present in other countries than the US; if it vanished from the US, there would still be plenty of Catholics. So his notion that :
"[s]ince 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control and 78 percent of Catholics think a good Catholic can reject the bishops' teaching on this matter, says Gutting, "the bishops' claim to authority in this matter has been undermined. ... The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church""
is without foundation. 100 minus 78 = 22, not 0 - so at least 22 percent of Catholics in the CC in the US do *not* "think a good Catholic can reject the bishops' teaching on this matter". Or do they not count as members of the Catholic Church ? If they are Catholics, then the "immorality of birth control is" still very definitely "a teaching of the Catholic Church".
I was very disappointed in the author's reasoning; all the more as I came to essay disposed to agree with him. It is unwise, because inaccurate, to say that because a doctrine or dogma is not accepted in one country, it has no standing in the rest of the Church either. But as he did not qualify his statement "The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church" in any way, that is the conclusion to which his statement leads. The words will bear no other sense. If he did not mean that because a doctrine or dogma is not accepted in one country, it has no standing in the rest of the Church, he could, and should, have said so. A philosopher who does not think with rigorous precision, and write accordingly, does neither himself, nor his readers and hearers, any favours.
If Catholicism vanished utterly from the US, or from all the world except for a few people in a room in a flat in Paris or Seoul, those few would be the Catholic Church. If they believed the whole of the teaching of the CC as laid down in its doctrinal & other texts, that would the Faith of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in Korea began in a very similar way to that. Numbers do not matter - the disciples at Pentecost were about 120 in number - a mere nothing, compared to the millions in the rest of the Roman Empire. Yet it is the Roman Empire that has gone, and not the Church.
the Catholic Church is
the Catholic Church is disappearing except for a few people on the streets in Ciudad Juarez.
The Roman Empire never went away, only changed its base, to Britain, to DC, and continues its malevolent anti-life dictatorial project.
which we humbly and meekly must resist, clinging to Life, and to Love and to compassion with the poor and hungry and homeless and unhealthy, whom our anglophone bishops despise.
Excellent point about how
Excellent point about how Americans tend to see their experience of anything, including church, to be universal. No need to look beyond our borders. We are Americans! What we do, goes!
However . . . might I warn my fellow American males that women see this issue on a completely different plane. They do not give a rat's you-know-what about the finer points of Humanae Vitae, the teaching authority of the church, the sense of the faithful, religious liberty, or anything else men concoct when they discuss an issue that is so deeply personal to them because it affects their bodies, their health, and their right to make their own decisions.
I got that two-by-four between the eyes during that one week when the issue over the HHS rule was focused on "religious liberty" --- or "forcing" the church to cover something in its insurance plan that church leacers, rightly or wrongly, strongly teach against.
One night, we were watching a whole phalannx of "liberal" pundits on MSNBC -- Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne, Gene Robinson -- take up the church's position on this, while any woman who dared say that the provision would put the decision of birth control squarely into the hands of women was quickly shouted down by men who bellowed "First Amendment" and "Obama has really made a mistake on this one."
My wife was getting angrier and angrier. Men, even so-called "liberals" and "moderates" just weren't getting it. And what we weren't getting and still don't get is that this isn't our issue, fellas. And even when we think we are speaking up in defense of women's rights, that is often seen as patronizing. They don't need our help.
If I had ultimate power, I would require for just one solid month, that the only people allowed to speak about the birth control issue would be women, pro or con. All males would be required to shut up and listen.
I agree with Robert McClory.
I agree with Robert McClory. I remember as a teen who was very faithful to adhering to the teachings of the hierarchy (I was a teen in the 1960's) I heard a baptist minister talking on the radio. In those days I readily dismissed the preachings of radio ministers. But, his words struck me. He said that you cannot live your life by doing what you minister tells you to do. You must take ownership of your actions. When you get to the gates of heaven and are questioned on you actions, saying "the minister told me to do it" will not cut it.
I was very struck by this comment. I thought that in spirit is was a very Catholic idea though at that point I had not ever heard it from Catholics.
PS: Also lost is that health care is for the employee. It is a work benefit (like salary). The employers portion is exempt from payroll taxes so it saves the employer money. The employee is not compelled to use any of the health care services. Those who agree with the bishops can follow their conscience. Those that do not can also follow their conscience.
many of us will be left
many of us will be left standing at the gate arguing endlessly the heretical "just war theory," pleading to get in, claiming our bishops, our pastors, did not lead.
Many will stand anxiously explaining how we denied sanctuary to the illegal alien, and food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, homes to the homeless, universal health care . . . This will be our purgatory, for many, our hell.
having lost hidden communism
having lost hidden communism as their favorite windmill enemy our bishops work this one ad absurdum
Most Christians believed in
Most Christians believed in Arianism back in the day. Bishops taught otherwise. Doctrine isn't defined by majority rule or mob mentality.
Er, you're wrong traddie.
Er, you're wrong traddie. Most bishops believed in Arianism, it was the faithful laity who protested and changed the course of history.
"I'm Rick Santorum, and I
"I'm Rick Santorum, and I endorse this political message."
Gutting is Protestant if he
Gutting is Protestant if he denies the obligation to follow the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium.(I'm not a member of any religion myself,but creeds are meaningless if individuals' consciences supersede them without disqualifying one as following the definers of the creeds).
If you are following your conscience out of the Roman obedience,admit that that is what you are doing.
Articles like this just
Articles like this just proves how little people understand our Constitution and our liberty and freedoms.
The founding fathers warned of the potential for a government that would try to control what we think and how we are to think. That is where we are today!
Andrew K
This is becoming laughable!
This is becoming laughable! Every time MSW writes another article on this subject it reads like a further explanation why all Catholic's just need to get their heads right and see that the accommodation is a "win" "win"! 98% of Catholics see nothing wrong with it so it must be okay!
President Obama's mandate is an "attack on conscience"! It is a mandate which violates a person's right to choose!
Liberals have argued for decades that people must have the right to choose. But now, the right to choose is being denied and liberals refuse to fight for it! I now know how disingenuous and corrupt they really are.
Andrew K
Thank you Mr.McClory for this
Thank you Mr.McClory for this reference. I am continually reminded that hierarchical pronouncements and the virtually rote repetition of grade school catechical absolutism by traditionalist posters seem to contradict its fundamental “q&a”: Who made me? Response: God made me in His image and likeness, to know love and serve Him. Putting aside the 'maleness' for the moment, the “image and likeness” bit seems to be off their radar. It seems that the “image and likeness” (intellect, will) is reserved to those rendered “ontologically” different and further to “its fullness”, i.e, institutional hierarchy. The destiny of all “others” is to submit and comply.
This “teaching authority” notion really bugs me. It seems to assume that “authority” is pedagogy and that “administration” is teaching. In my book, any teacher who has lost the will or the capacity to instill learning has had “his” certificate revoked “ontologically”.
Very strange. There's losts
Very strange. There's losts of heat in this thread. I wonder why no one is
pointing out a simple truth in this matter. There is a Canonical Requirement
that a teaching be received by the people. It is patently obvious that catholics in the US and also elsewhere in the world have largely rejected this
teaching. There is no problem with peole who believe the teaching on contraception following their conscience. The passage of time since 1968 and Humanae Vitae has only seen a very large increase of people using contraception to control family size. Be honest! How many have found attending mass that there were many pews occupied byt families with more than
3 or 4 children? We ask our hierarchy to listen to us but they will not.
Is it possible that there is a communio/omerta as relating to the sensus fidelium. I am suspicious. I believe that the system silences those bishops who would otherwise acclaim the sensus fidelium. We are now generations away
from conceding absolute authority to our Hierarchy. It may never happen again.
The sex abuse crisis and its worst aspect the abuse of authority is a teaching
instrument no sane catholic can fail to see. We can act in good conscience as
agreed by Joseph Ratzinger at the time ov Vatican II when he was a 'periti'.
Cardinal Dolan will not win. Our nation will insist of the separation of church and state. There is no way of conceding to the Catholic Church without
opening a can of worms when churchs start insisting on the same treatment for
insurance and blood transfusion, insurance and whatever new group decides to
bring into contention. its not about liberal and conservative its about following ones conscience. Funny, a review of my acquaintances revealed a slightly larger family size among my liberal friends than my conservative ones. I fully understand this may be a local matter.
God Bless all, heres to a rational solution to our dilemmas. I truly hope that
no one will be embarrassed by the outcome. Sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie.
TomC
Post new comment