The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Bishops' draft pastoral warns of dangers to marriage
'Marriage: Love and Live in the Divine Plan' under consideration in November
Oct. 12, 2009
A couple process out of Our Mother of Sorrows Church in Greece, N.Y., at the end of their wedding ceremony in 2008. (CNS)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionThe draft of a new pastoral letter that warns against four fundamental challenges to marriage, describing two of them -- cohabitation and contraception -- as intrinsically evil, will be considered by the U.S. bishops at their November national gathering in Baltimore.
The draft of the letter, "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan," a copy of which was obtained by NCR, covers familiar territory. It asserts that the church throughout history has taught that marriage "is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman"; that its dual purpose, the union of individuals and the conception of children, are inseparable; and that each sexual act must be open to the possibility of children. The paper condemns artificial birth control, same-sex marriage, cohabitation and divorce as challenges "directed to the very meaning and purposes of marriage."
The bishops say they are developing the letter, intended as "a theological and doctrinal foundation," as one expression of a 2004 pledge "to be a marriage-building church."
That year, the bishops approved a "National Pastoral Initiative for Marriage" to teach both the church and wider culture the meaning of marriage "from the riches of our Catholic faith."
While acknowledging with gratitude "that so many couples are living in fidelity to their marital commitment" the bishops express great concern over "the fact that far too many people do not understand what it means to say that marriage -- both as a natural institution and Christian sacrament -- is a blessing and gift from God."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read an NCR Editorial: On marriage, the bishops should start over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter relies heavily on the late Pope John Paul II's perception of new cultural threats "that seek to destroy" the family and on his writings about human sexuality.
The bishops ground their understanding of "male-female complementarity," in the Genesis creation stories, noting that in the first account God creates both male and female at the same time, thus demonstrating scripture's affirmation of "the fundamental equality and dignity of man and woman as persons created in God's image."
In the second account, God creates Eve after creating Adam as "a helpmate who is suitable for him or matching him. … Adam and Eve were literally made for each other. Man and woman have been made to come together in the union of marriage."
The stories, according to the draft, illustrate that man and woman are both different and the same. "While human persons are more than biological organisms, the roots of marriage can be seen in the biological fact that a man and a woman can come together as male and female in a union that has the potential for bringing forth another human person."
The text notes that the first command given to Adam and Eve is "be fertile and multiply," a command, in the bishops' view, that echoes the "very nature" of marriage, which is "ordered to the procreation and education of offspring." It is in offspring, write the bishops, that married love "finds its crowning glory."
"The unitive and the procreative/educative purposes [of marriage] are meant to be inseparable. … These are two connected meanings of the same reality," according to the text. "The transmission of life is a sublime, concrete realization of this radical self-gift between a man and a woman."
To close off even a single act of sexual intercourse to the possibility of procreation through the use of contraception, say the bishops, "is a way of trying to separate the unitive meaning of marriage from the procreative and educative meaning. This is an intrinsically evil action."
The bishops advocate natural family planning, which "makes use of periodic abstinence from sexual intercourse" to limit the number of children, as an alternative to other contraceptive methods. Although the aim might be the same, to limit the number of children, the bishops argue that natural family planning does "nothing to alter the conjugal act" while the use of artificial contraceptive methods is an attempt to "master the sources of life."
In a note of consolation to infertile couples, the bishops point out that even a childless marriage "is a distinctive communion of persons. By its very nature, marriage is both love-giving and life-giving. An infertile couple continues to manifest both of these attributes when their hearts remain open to the needs of others, including adopted and foster children."
Cohabitation, says the draft, negatively affects children as well as couples. "At the heart of cohabitation lies a reluctance or refusal to make a public, permanent commitment." The practice, according to the bishops, turns marriage, intended as a foundation for a community of persons, into a "private institution."
The bishops decry the rise of same-sex marriage as "one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture." Same-sex marriage "redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society."
Divorce is a reflection of original sin, "which disrupted the original communion of man and woman," the document states. Acknowledging that the stresses of modern life and ordinary disagreements and quarrels that occur can jeopardize marriage, the bishops urge "couples in crisis to turn to the Lord," as well as to programs and ministries offered by the church, for help in solving problems.
If in the case of domestic violence, where the safety of a woman and children may be at risk, the bishops acknowledge that divorce may be the "only solution to a morally unacceptable situation." In such cases, the bishops urge "frequent use of the sacraments, especially the sacraments of holy Eucharist and of penance and reconciliation." Those who have been divorced and remarried civilly are encouraged to participate in parish life and attend Sunday Eucharist, even though their second marriage is not considered valid and they are not eligible to receive Communion.
The bishops encourage divorced persons who wish to remarry in the church to seek counsel and possibly an annulment.
At one point in the text, the bishops deal with a kind of hierarchy of beings and the significance of conjugal love and procreation for humans. "For St. Thomas Aquinas," the bishops note, "while angels are, strictly speaking, higher than human beings by nature, the ability to procreate in love makes human beings, at least in one way, more in the image and likeness of God than the angels, who are unable to procreate."
The bishops meet Nov. 16-19 at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel.
Read the the draft pastoral statement yourself: "Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan" (This is a large pdf file.)
[Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address is troberts@ncronline.org.]
Oh, the bishops can be so
Oh, the bishops can be so clear about what marriage and sex mean for the laity, but so unsure about sexual abuse by priests. I am not the slightest bit interested in what these arrogant men have to say about marriage and sex until they accept responsibility for their own moral failure in the cover up. Not one bishop (with the possible except of Cardinal Law, who still lives in a palace and has a place of honor) has been held accountable for the sex abuse cover up. And now they are scared because they think homosexuality threatens marriage? Hardly. In case they haven't noticed, the priesthood is full of them and it hasn't brought down that institution. We've had homosexuals for many centuries now--and marriage too. I don't think either practice is under any threat. And we already know about God's plan for sex. Too bad the bishops have just now figured it out.
Amen!
Amen!
I second that!
I second that!
The Bishops left out the main
The Bishops left out the main part of the creation story -- your god kicked the first HETEROSEXUAL couple out of paradise for seeking knowledge. They also left out the part about their HETEROSEXUAL son Caine killing his brother because they both wanted to have sex with their sister.
They also left out of the story that the Catholic church threatened to murder Galileo for pointing out that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, something their god failed to reveal to the writers of the bronze age bible. They threatened to kill him because he sought and shared KNOWLEDGE - do you see the pattern here, Bishops. The sin of wanting knowledge is what Constantine's scribes wrote during the Council of Nicea is the reason your god killed his second son (Adam being your god's first son) - remember Jesus asking your god to forgive people because they "know not what they do"?
While of course bishops in America have the constitutional right of free speech and religious freedom, but your rights end at the tip of your nose. What you must never have the right to do is impose your heterosupremacist theocRAT tyranny on any Americans. Your approval, acceptance, tolerance or agreement are irrelevant, the United States Constitution must be UNCONDITIONAL.
In fact, you can take your bronze age sun revolves around the flat earth inquistion crusade bible and shove it down your own throat, and choke on it.
Your arguments are simple ad
Your arguments are simple ad hominem attacks. Such arguments are considered logical fallacies and as such, they are the preferred tool of demagogues. How is it helpful to attack the person and avoid the question whether what he/she says is true? Is this not the arrogance you are talking about?
Forgive me friend, but I
Forgive me friend, but I thought the facts were so patently obvious that there was really only one thing left to do. And that is to point out the absurdity of the allegation that marriage is under threat due to homosexuality. I believe that is the "fact" that the bishops want us to accept. What a silly idea! And that's a fact! If you see it otherwise, as apparently do the bishops, then would you mind divulging those facts that would convince me that I should worry myself silly over two gay people living out a committed union just because they want to call it "marriage"? My friend, it might upset you that two gay people want a publicly recognized civil union under the title "marriage", but it does not bother me in the least. I do not feel the least bit threatened in my marriage. I don't even feel that your marriage is under threat, if in fact you are married. Instead, what bothers me is that those who call themselves our moral leaders (you know, the pope, the bishops and the priests) know so much about what lay people ought to be doing in their bedrooms, and yet know so little about what bishops and priests should be doing with little boys. But I digress. We were talking about marriage and how the bishops believe homosexuality threatens that institution. They ought to know. There are so many priests who reject the idea of marriage, or has that fact escaped you too!
Your arguments are simple ad
Your arguments are simple ad hominem attacks. Such arguments are considered logical fallacies and as such, they are the preferred tool of demagogues. How is it helpful to attack the person and avoid the question whether what he/she says is true? Is this not the arrogance you are talking about?
Bishops certainly are clear
Bishops certainly are clear about some things; as in the distance between themselves and reality...out of touch that is. As soon as emotionally laden words are tossed into the mix e.g intrinsic, the thrust is lost. Some other posts fondly use the word "toxic" in describing birth control and cohabitation. It is these two issues more than others which give reason for many leaving the Church. Another favorite of the hierarchy is the redux argument to "objectively disordered"; as if any of them know what that is. It is not simply the attaching a pejorative label, but much more a refusal of 'episcopacy' to respect, understand, and tolerate disparate thinking. The wisest thinking of all is interred within our Constitution, which hails minority thought, deed and action...all of which is antithetical to the Church'a counterenlightened stance. For any in the Church to seriously rail against birth control and to ascribe a value as 'inherent evil' serves only to argue against itself...and appear to all as 'fools'. What is needed more and not talked about at all, is population control...what say the Church about this.
It is difficult to comment on
It is difficult to comment on this extremely negative "Pastoral." How long do lay Catholics have to endure the constant negative stream coming from the leaders of our community?
Compassion has been replaced
Compassion has been replaced by legalism. The bishops have confused "doctrinal" with "pastoral" in this edict which was supposed to be a letter. The distortion is now complete: the hierarchy has now gone totally counter to everything that Jesus Christ tried to show us. This is the consequence of substituting law, structure and institution for compassion, relationship, and love. Let us turn away from this confusing nonsense and direct our attention to the Spirit who guides all of us.
Oh, the bishops, they who
Oh, the bishops, they who claim that they do not practice sex and do not care much for women, can be so clear and so verbose about what marriage and sex mean for the laity (male and female alike), and yet so unsure about what sexual abuse by priests means. I am not the slightest bit interested in what these arrogant men have to say about marriage and sex until they accept responsibility for their own moral failure in the cover up of sex abuse by priests. Not one bishop (with the possible except of Cardinal Law, who still lives in a palace and has a place of honor) has been held accountable for the sex abuse cover up. And now they are scared that homosexuality, cohabitation, and contraception threaten marriage? Hardly! In case they haven't noticed, the priesthood (including bishops) is full of homosexuals and homosexuality hasn't brought down that institution. We've had homosexuals for many centuries now--and marriage too. I don't think either practice is under any threat, despite the homophobic behavior of these bishops. The bishops used to say about divorce that it too threatened marriage, but people just kept on getting married. And we already know about God's plan for sex. Too bad the bishops just recently figured it out.
Another step backwards into
Another step backwards into the darkness.
Why should the People of God
Why should the People of God listen to the bishops when the bishops do not listen to the people. The bishops have not learned the lesson taught by Calrdinal John Henry Newman, namely, that the bishops should consult the faithful in matters of doctrine. Only by such consultation can the magisterium learn that the teachings on marriage need extensive development, extensive change, extensive correction.
Well, good luck with getting
Well, good luck with getting an answer, Don. Unless you are willing to once again settle for the archaic "the church is not a democracy" as though that is something to be touted publicly.
"To close off even a single
"To close off even a single act of sexual intercourse to the possibility of procreation through the use of contraception, say the bishops.... This is an intrinsically evil action."
Yet they approve of and teach NFP? There is no possible end to the hypocrisy and stupidity that revels in the minds of this doofus crowd.....
Even if one refrains from
Even if one refrains from having sex during fertile periods, that act itself states children are not welcome in this conjugal union at this time. It is an act which negates the dual purpose of marriage as JPII saw marriage.
It's not just this pastoral letter on marriage which needs an over haul, it's the whole notion of sexuality and it's place in human behavior and spiritual development. For me personally, as long as the priesthood must celibate, that fact alone says sex is bad for your spiritual life. This letter on marriage is just window dressing for an inherently flawed position of sexuality.
Agreed, Colkoch!
Agreed, Colkoch!
You should read Humane Vitae
You should read Humane Vitae first, methinks.
Also, you need a better understanding of NFP. I think you have one or more mistaken ideas about it.
Pete, I've read Humanae Vitae
Pete, I've read Humanae Vitae numerous times. A person further down the comments makes a very cogent case for the difference between NFP and artificial contrapception. I think the name was bthompson. This commenter made points this letter from the bishops does not, because this is not a pastoral letter and the comment I reference is pastoral.
Intent is the issue in the determination of any moral act. In my book the intent to avoid pregancy is the operative issue and this intent directly contradicts the understanding of sexual intimacy in this letter--whether that is done artificially or through NFP. The same holds true for annulment. This intent is to sever the relationship.
I personally am far from an absoluteist. The fact is there are times relationships fail, and couples don't want children, and there can be very compelling moral reasons for these decisions. Laity don't need Catholic versions of birth control and divorce to recognize these truths, but apparently the hierarchy does.
Then i think you should read
Then i think you should read it, and some other documents as well, again, as you still voice mistaken ideas/
For example, you say: "Laity don't need Catholic versions of birth control and divorce"
Divorce is not an annulment.
A Church annulment is an ecclesiastical judicial act whereby what was believed to be a canonically valid marriage is declared not to have been one in the first place.
Do you see the difference? BTW, just because you apply for an annulment doesn't mean you'll get one. It isn't a civil divorce.
To equate NFP with condoms, the pill, etc. tells me that all you did was perhaps read a summary or a review of Humane Vitae, not the document itself.
It IS very possible to misuse NFP, however. In that case, it is just as sinful as artificial contraception.
"To equate NFP with condoms,
"To equate NFP with condoms, the pill, etc. tells me that all you did was perhaps read a summary or a review of Humane Vitae, not the document itself.
It IS very possible to misuse NFP, however. In that case, it is just as sinful as artificial contraception."
Catholic women have read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, et al and have decided otherwise.
NOT ALL of us have decided
NOT ALL of us have decided otherwise. SOME of us have indeed ebraced Church teachings on this matter and are glad for it. The fact is that almost all of the grumbling going on here (including the front page editorial) is related to one basic fact: It is difficult to live the life Christ has called us to, and most of us aren't up to the task. The difference is that SOME of us understand this and keep trying. Others complain that it's all the bishops' fault.
Give it a rest. Be Catholic or don't be Catholic. The Church is not Burger King.
Doesn't matter. If I read the
Doesn't matter.
If I read the latest works on Astronomy and 'decide otherwise' that the Earth is actually riding on the back of a cosmic turtle, I'm still wrong.
And so are these women.
I wonder: what does the
I wonder: what does the Bible, the word of God, the norming norm that cannot be normed, say about birth control? Is Humanae Vitae as authoritative as the Bible?
"what does the Bible, the
"what does the Bible, the word of God, the norming norm that cannot be normed, say about birth control?"
- Excellent question! Many people think that contraception is something brand new, but it isn't. For example, there have been mentions of it found in Egypt dating to almost 2000 BC.
There is a LEAST one DIRECT reference to it in Scripture as well, that of "coitus interruptus": "Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing." Gen 38:8–10
Just in case anyone thinks that Onan's crime was that he didn't father children, remember this: the biblical penalty for not giving your brother's widow children was public humiliation, not death. But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not doing the duty of a brothr in law.
As far as Humane Vitae goes, yes, it is authoritative.
If this is so pertinent, then
If this is so pertinent, then why do the bishops not insist that men not marry their brothers' widows?
Congrats! You missed the
Congrats! You missed the entire point of the post.
Not really. The point is the
Not really. The point is the bishops pick and choose what rules to push on us from all that the bible says and they have a second set for themselves.
Let's get serious here;
Let's get serious here; Humanae Vitae is the main reason many have left the Church...if it was not for that and Casti Connubi, the Church would have been better prepared for the modern world. Or did I forget Vatican I and the problem of infallibility; and must I forget Pius X and the sin of modernism. These Church endeavors have rendered it impossibly lost from which it cannot recover without admitting its errors.
"Let's get serious here;
"Let's get serious here; Humanae Vitae is the main reason many have left the Church"
many have left the Church over the years because She teaches you must do more than a simple act of 'accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and savior' too. Does that mean that to get them back the church should teach that good works don't matter?
If you want a clearer idea on Casti Connubii, try reading this.
"and must I forget Pius X and the sin of modernism"
So... are you saying there isn't anything wrong with what is defined as the heresy of Modernism? Or am i misunderstanding you?
I'm not sure that I am
I'm not sure that I am following any of what you say. There is no issue with me regarding the necessity of good works, attending to the needs of the less advantaged. Universal health care for all would be an example of that.
Indeed, the alleged sin of modernism is quite wrong, as is the entire counterenlightenment of the Church, disrespeting the advances cascading from the Enlightenment...this would include the substitution of science and reason in the place of religious superstition. The Church continues its counter enlightenment as it proceeds to disassemble Vatican II. The Church has always been reactionary and forced throughout history unwillingly to accept the advances in knowledge. Birth control is a major example. Only the silly are unable to see the folly of the Church in its stance on birth control, and there are others. As science bursts forth with new knowledge and understanding the obstinancy of the Church remains with its feet in the concrete poured itself in Vatican I, and calling its claim to infallibility. That very claim leaves the Church in an impossible rigidity, unable to move forth with science, always attempting to cling to outdated viewpoints the rest of the world recognizes as absurd...time after time history is replete with such instances. All know them, but who admit them, who refuse, and thusly the voice of reason and absurdity are identifiable.
"this would include the
"this would include the substitution of science and reason in the place of religious superstition."
- I always find this kind of statement funny. Quick question, when did interest in what we call 'witchcraft', 'magic' etc really start to take off? (I'll give you the answer: it really started taking off during the Renaissance.)
"The Church continues its counter enlightenment as it proceeds to disassemble Vatican II."
- This is just plain ignorant. Here is your assignment: Give me a couple examples of what the Church has done that 'disassembles Vatican II', THEN give me the statements from the actual DOCUMENTS of Vatican II that the Church is 'disassembling'. Don't give me any talk of the 'Spirit of Vatican II', give me the HARD, COLD, DOCUMENT, FACTS.
"Only the silly are unable to see the folly of the Church in its stance on birth control"
- Really? I can already tell you have read nothing the Church teaches on the topic. You should do so. You will find that most of the family and cultural problems we have now were predicted by the Church when dealing with the question of contraception, divorce, etc.
"That very claim leaves the Church in an impossible rigidity, unable to move forth with science, always attempting to cling to outdated viewpoints the rest of the world recognizes as absurd."
- There is no conflict between Science and the Church teaching. When technology crosses over morality, you will find the Church standing firm against it, just like the Church condemned as hideously immoral the fairly recent 'scientific' fad of eugenics last century. Perhaps the Church shouldn't have been so rigid against that, eh?
"As science bursts forth with new knowledge and understanding the obstinancy of the Church remains with its feet in the concrete poured itself in Vatican I, and calling its claim to infallibility"
I wonder where in history the church has condemend the periodic table, String Theory, the laws of thermodynamics or even the entire idea of evolutionary biology. Perhaps you can point instances of things like this out? The Church is not anti-science. You thinking that shows you are ignorant of any real historical knowledge as the Church has been a MAJOR patron of science. (guess what? The guy who first proposed the Big Bang theory? A priest.)
Or did I perhaps miss when the Church excommunicated Pascal?
You were right, HV was the
You were right, HV was the main reason why "many (?) have left the Church." (Although I doubt that those who left were that "many.") Me thinks, though, that the "many" you were referring to were, first of all, ordained priests (and therefore, in relation to the total U.S. Catholic priests, they were not that many) who gave in to the temptation to disobey the teaching magisterium of the Church; and then they were followed by those who didn't understand the implications of the teaching authority of the Church. If those "Catholic" priests did not succumb to the temptation to disobey a clear official teaching ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, we would not have the present confusion among the people of God, both those ordained and the laity. The tradition and clear teaching of the Church on human sexuality has been very clear: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
The bishops' draft pastoral
The bishops' draft pastoral letter setting out that "marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman; that its dual purpose, the union of individuals and the conception of children, are inseparable; and that each sexual act must be open to the possibility of children. The paper condemns artificial birth control, same-sex marriage, cohabitation and divorce as challenges "directed to the very meaning and purposes of marriage.
That is a fine, perfectly defined concept but it is so black and white. Unfortunately we are not living in a Divine Sin-free Kingdom. We are inhabitating Satan's kingdom here on earth for the time being and trying to adhere to God's and Christ's teachings. There are so many shades of grey areas.
There seems to be no accounting for spousal abuse (that can come on BOTH sides, I might add) and/or alcoholic/drug abuse that can wreck a marriage. And to have numerous children in a world's economy that can't feed them or educate them, is that really suppposed to be an ordained plan? And the other statement that "each sexual act must be open to the possibility of children," is just so out-of-touch with today's thinking and attitudes (it's asking Catholics to revert to 18th and 19th century thinking). That, alone, would create enough tension in a marriage to lead it to breakup and divorce.
I'm trying to get my mind around all of this and I just can't. I'm glad I'm as old as I am (in my 70s) and way past all of this. I can understand today's young people rebelling.
Unfortunately, the bishops
Unfortunately, the bishops and the Vatican suffer from a disorder called erotophobia. Sex is to be used strictly for the purpose of having children and never just for the fun of it. Give me a break!
Keep your heads in the sand,
Keep your heads in the sand, bishops. How can you porclaim the "fundamental equality and dignity of men and women as persons created in God's image" and then turn around and say women cannot be priests, cannot participate fully in the leadership of our Church. Who will believe Your message on marriage unless the injustice done to women is corrected.
Well said. Too bad that I
Well said. Too bad that I expect all bishops will just label you a rabble rouser.
There are groups other than
There are groups other than women, which the Vatican needs to address to have its own seamless garment when they are promoting "dignity for all people". Often their talk about the prefrrential treatment of the poor is not always supported by their policies. Also, when it comes to dignity, it seems that gay and lesbian are not part of "all people" as well.
Again...Eve is created to
Again...Eve is created to "help" Adam...haven't we gotten past this antiquated theology yet???
I was taught in school that
I was taught in school that the word is better translated "like-counterpart."
Yes Eve was created to help
Yes Eve was created to help Adam -- and Adam was created in the exectation of Eve, nothing of the whole creation could satisfy him. This is what the old Jewish teachers wrote when deported to Babylone. The first chapters of Genesis are the summary of the Jewish "revolt" against the pagan abuses and traditions they encountered in Babylone, which in those days was the summum of Culture.
Jesus took up their conclusion: Yes man and woman will leave their parents behind to move towards a new Reality. Of course they will help each other. Of course Adam will live for Eve and vice versa. The old days of malehood (still dominant in many Muslim countries) were over, already in 700 BC when the Jews revolted against Babylone.
Again...Eve is created to "help" Adam... this in NOT an antiquated theology yet but still a revolutionary thought
Let us not confuse a mistaken shortened statement of this truth with its full expression.
Adam is created to "help" Eve. REmember in the Bach's Cantata 140 Wachet Auf! (in which St Paul
...and a big NOT ONLY must be
...and a big NOT ONLY must be added to the entirety of Adam and Eve, and Genesis too. Which parts of the Bible are to remain literal. Do the bishops 'cherry pick' their way through the gospels to support ideas already held. For instance, can we have it both ways. Is any of Genesis other than a myth? Can it be anything but an allegory? Do we then ride along with the Creationist, take Genesis literally and say man and dinosaurs walked upon the earth together, and all within the universe, all that is, was created a little over six thousand years ago. How does one justify taking a 'myth' in support of marriage, man and woman's role in marriage, and thusly define marriage according to one's own will. Nay, the only way of justification is through reason, enlightened thought, seeking 'Truth' where truth lies and not where any hierarchical type wishes to place it, and most of all be open to the advances in science and concomitant increase in knowledge...goodwill must prevail.
What do the bishops know of
What do the bishops know of marriage? Are they not aware of the fact that Paul VI totally ignored the input of his commission on birth control. Are they aware that Humanae Vitae is ignored by the great majority of Catholics who are church-going and receiving the sacraments without any feeling of guilt? Why can't they see that the "sensus fidelium" has negated the birth control teaching of Humanae Vitae?
I'm reminded of what a friend
I'm reminded of what a friend said years ago: "Catholics have arrived at a practical resolution of this birth control issue."
But our hierarchs just keep on spouting the S.O.S.
They continue to chip away at what little moral credibility they might still have!
How sad.
If you were to actually read
If you were to actually read the document, you would see that Paul VI was completely correct is his assessment of what would become of a culture based on a contraceptive attitude.
Hmmm … let’s see, What did
Hmmm … let’s see, What did Jesus know about marriage? He was not married either … Another conspiracy… of celibate men…
"He was not Married either"
"He was not Married either" ???????? Can we be sure about that, regardless of what the Church professes: who knows for sure.
Yes, we can be sure. Read
Yes, we can be sure. Read your history and the early church fathers.
Just so you know, Dan Brown in not a valid historical source.
Same old "Axis of Evil".
Same old "Axis of Evil". This "pastoral message" is nothing but an indictment of all that the Bishops hate about the relationship between people. It is intellectually dishonest to oppose contraception and then claim expertise on marriage or anything else for that matter.
Wow! That's the biggest non
Wow! That's the biggest non sequitur I've seen around here in a long time. That must have taken serious effort Thomas. Congrats!
*golf clap*
"same-sex marriage...harms
"same-sex marriage...harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society."
I don't feel that my intrinsic dignity is harmed by same-sex marriage. I'm the same person I was before that was ever considered.
My own experience of a same-sex couple was to see two people tenderly devoted to each other, all the way through the grueling process of one dying from cancer. As for the "commom good of society", these were two bright, highly educated, caring people who did what they could to make the world a better place.
Marriage is too complex to be able to say that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil". That puts us into an older way of doing morality - looking at only the act instead of looking at the heart of the person(s) involved.
To me, "procreation" is much broader than the single issue of becoming pregnant, just as "pro-life" is much broader than the single issue of abortion. Marriage creates life in so many ways. So many holy ways.
I wish the bishops would look back to the work done of artificial contraception years ago, and to the results and advice that came out of that. I wish they would look into what we now know through science and psychology and medicine.
As for myself, after serious health concerns my husband and I were told it would be best for me not to become pregnant again. According to the bishops it would have been more life giving to play Russian Roulette with my life than to make a choice to do what I needed to to be able to raise our four children. What we chose was "intrinsically evil" and the right choice would have been to abstain from sex until after menopause. Thank you, Bishops, for that life-giving advice.
Thank you for your insightful
Thank you for your insightful comments --- (which is more than I can say for this crap coming once again from our hierarchs).
As Cathleen Kaveny reminded some of us bloggers at COMMONWEAL not long ago, while "intrinsically evil" means that something is always wrong, it does not tell us the moral gravity of the act. As she noted, there are actions that are not intrinsically evil but of greater moral gravity than stuff that Rome considers intrinsically evil.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Your post says so much, so
Your post says so much, so much that is good and wise. The sex of ones partner is not revelent in achieving the common good. Rather it is acheived by living honest, caring lives. Your last paragraph is a particularly strong statement as to the folly of the bishop's position. I try to see the other side to arguments, but for someone to argue with you concerning your decision not to put your life at risk is truly baffeling.
I believe in marriage as a
I believe in marriage as a sacrament lasting forever, just as it is pictured in this article. Also, the idea that children are, of course, very important and a blessing.
Now, no one should be told to stay in an abusive marriage. Annulment, however, is really easy if you are friends with the right priest. This gets people to looking for the right priest for any reason whatsoever. This can be done.
Please drop the old wives
Please drop the old wives tale of "knowing a priest" or "with enough money" will achieve an annulment. While corruption is always possible, having worked within a tribunal, I can say that no case depends upon special relationships or money. Tribunals work with canon law to attempt to establish the truth. No judge accepts the suggested grounds without question, and no annulment is approved without judicial process and an automatic appeal to a highter court before it is affirmed. My experience is with US tribunals. The Church provides basis with Canon Law and Rotal decisions for any acceptable grounds.
Over 70
Divorce is an evil so they
Divorce is an evil so they get around it by giving annulments to anyone who asks for one. My sister got one against her will because her husband of 18 years decided he wanted someone else. I don't know of anyone who has asked for an annulment to be turned down. Frankly though, I do agree that too many people marry with the idea they can divorce later if they don't like the marriage afterall. It doesn't help to see prominent people such as actors get married and divorced within a week or two. Frankly I feel like gay people who want to commit to a lifetime marriage are in much greater standing for the strength of marriage than the casual marriages with their divorces. Sometimes people say marriage doesn't matter anymore but the gays who are fighting for it tell us otherwise yet we shut them out. They would be in the same boat as the childless couples the bishops talk about but they don't say those people shouldn't be married. Perhaps we shouldn't be making such a big deal out of the marriage with the fancy weddings people have today but instead have a small ceremony and save the big celebration for a church to-do at the 10 year mark.
As far as contraception, the bishops keep trying to tell the people how evil it is but the message is just not getting across. Maybe the people think it is a worse evil to have children for whom they have no healthcare or enough money to raise and educate in today's world. The bishops have been trying to get the people to stop using contraceptives for more than 60 years and it hasn't worked yet. Maybe the people know something they don't?
Back in Catholic grammar
Back in Catholic grammar school, we were taught that "sex is dirty so save it for the one you love." They didn't get too specific after that statement, but it would now have to include "after a church-witnessed marriage between one man and one woman (preferably both Catholic), without using a condom or taking 'the pill' (no matter how many times you have already increased and multiplied)!
The direct statement that "same-sex marriage is one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture." I truly believe that the hierarchy has already committed the "most troubling developments in contemporary culture" with the universal absolution of a hierarchy which looked the other way as case after case of clergy child abuse was ignored or handled in some secretive process of deception and fostering further abuse! It is no mere coincidence that the tactics of Bernard Law in Boston turned out to be the same shameless disregard to the young which was seen all over the country.
The advice in this pastoral to infertile couples is stupid. Unfortunately, there is no other word for it. What is offered as consolation to these couples SHOULD BE SAID to same-sex couples in regard to keeping their hearts open to the needs of foster and adoptive children.
One question my heterosexual friends discuss with great frequency is oral sex. They definitely are not opting out of it, and studies show that our teenagers have found it to be an excellent expedient in preventing pregnancy. Should we have a letter on this next?
It is truly sad that we could use a canon lawyer to explain fully what the church is allowing and not allowing in the bedroom. There are so many problems in this world, and our leaders put so much emphasis on a a basic subject about which they have no clue!
I am amused whenever I hear
I am amused whenever I hear celibates pontificating about human sexuality because they has about as much credibility as a Brit trying to explain the infield fly rule to a group of American baseball fans. In both cases the audiences have more expertise on the subject than the”experts”; much more.
And the pastoral letter to
And the pastoral letter to good hard working undocumented aliens,strangers in a strange land, who fall in love, cohabit, have children and marry legaly and then in the church when that possibility arises...When does that pastoral guidence come out.I know: right after the pastoral letter encouraging the spiritual journey of gays. Maybe all this will come after Bishops, as celebates can give honer to their own sexuality,and see that the passionate desire of God to be one with us, so beautifuly revealed in the marrital act, is liberating love and not shaming controle.
I attend Mass faithfully am a
I attend Mass faithfully
am a Eucharistic Minister
participate fully in 4 different Parish related missions
contribute - of course
led a Pre-Cana group
Married faithfully for 21 years
have 5 children all in Catholic Schools
HAD a VASECTOMY 7 YEARS AGO
and don't feel one iota of guilt nor am I afraid to tell anyone - including Pastors and Associates. There is a very good chance that I may well go to Hell one day, but it won't be because I got snipped!!
The bishops are doing their
The bishops are doing their jobs--teaching the truth.
The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.
The Church teaches that cohabitation is intrinsically evil.
The Church teaches that same-sex "unions" are intrinsically evil.
The MOST pastoral thing they can do is teach the truth.
Ridicule and slam the bishops all you want. They teach the truth. In the Name of Jesus Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, they teach the truth.
I agree. The bishops have
I agree. The bishops have been commissioned to do EXACTLY what they are doing: Teaching on faith and morals. What are they supposed to do? Take a poll and adapt Church teaching to accommodate the modern ethics of our post-Christian society?
I have to admit that I am a bit befuddled by the hatred and contempt some of my fellow NCR readers have for the men that God's providence has chosen to lead His Church. No arguing that some are unworthy, but even Judas was chosen as an apostle. I think we all need to take a breath, praise the Lord, and pray for the grace to love as Christians the men Christ has given us as leaders.
I think you may be confusing
I think you may be confusing anger with hate. They are different.
Thanks John, maybe I am, I
Thanks John, maybe I am, I hope I am.
But I hope we can learn to be angry and still be respectful. That's how real debate and real change can happen.
Agreed!
Agreed!
"Intrinsic evil" is supposed
"Intrinsic evil" is supposed to have some relationship to reason and natural law, and is supposed to mean that it can be figured out before or without a church rule. Which is to suggest that all those who "co-habitated" before the institution of marriage were performing intrinsically evil acts? Makes one wonder where the human race would be now? ah.....
How is same-sex marriage evil
How is same-sex marriage evil when it doesn't hurt you????????? WAKE UP AND JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY!!!!!!!!! I know PLENTY of heterosexual couples who have ruined their marriages and gotten divorced, hurting their children in the process and showing them that marriage does not work. I also know PLENTY of same-sex couples who are devoted to each other, who have children and who love each of them unconditionally. Tell me which of these is the right one? The one where the children are forced to see their parents argue and fight and say they don't love each other anymore? Or the one that tells their children that they love them, and each other and have a happy healthy relationship TOGETHER.
As a Catholic, and a child of divorced parents, I can tell you that I would rather have gay parents who are in love with each other and have a happy and healthy relationship together, rather than have to endure the HELL that I went through as a child when my parents got divorced. Maybe you should read the "Always Our Children" document that came out from the UCCB. It might show some insight for you. God loves everyone. Who are we to judge? We're not God.
I think what needs to be
I think what needs to be remembered is that the bishops, Magisterium, etc., do their best to teach the truth, but the Church is made up of humans and humans naturally make mistakes sometimes.
This is the same Church that taught a mere century ago that women were inferior to men, and their submission to males was the only proper and natural course. To modern eyes, that kind of statement seems reprehensible. JPII countered this teaching by reinterpreting Biblical texts to support a theology of mutual submission and self-giving. While the Church does it's best to maintain continuity, it cannot be denied that what this institution defines as "true" has changed, significantly, over the course of history.
While I certainly agree that a proper pastoral ministry includes the teaching of truth, what I think is missing from this document (and indeed, from numerous others) is the pastoral *perspective.* Many, many of the Church's teachers who write these kinds of letters have limited experience at the parish level--and if they don't see the kinds of real problems that people face at the individual level, how are they to have a full understanding of how such topics should be approached at the theological level? One of the main victories of Vatican II was the acknowledgment that the world can inform the Church, not just vice versa--this new concept hasn't yet been exercised in fullness. There is still too much ignorance of the actual Catholic community. One hopes that we are moving towards a time where laity can be more involved in these kinds of moral discussions, because ultimately determinations made about the nature of sexuality and marriage do not affect the priesthood as significantly as they affect the laity--and, to be sure, the hierarchy of priests do not constitute a panel of expertise in this area.
Acknowledging what the Church teaches does not end the discussion. It only begins one.
A wise man and priest said to
A wise man and priest said to us during the period of the birth control controversy that the church moves very slowly, but in the end nothing becomes dogma until accepted by the people. I've returned to that truth time and time again over the years as I've both continued to be enriched by the universal spiritual wisdom of the Church, and ceased to be troubled by the lack of wisdom in it's teaching positions post Vatican II. Perhaps the good that will come from the present controversy is that it will further awaken the laity to own it's voice and it's responsibility to live and speak the truth wherever it can be found instead of looking to the official voice of a hierarchy that is cut off from the truth of human relational and sexual reality.
These statements of yours
These statements of yours assume that what the bishops teach is in fact the truth because they teach it. That is like saying something is bad because I say it is bad, and something is good because I say it is good. The church has been hard pressed to substantiate what it teaches about sexual matters from many educated, theological corners. It will not listen to that truth because it contradicts what the church teaches. The church instead just goes on teaching what it wills and calls it the truth. You should not confuse the church's right to teach what it wills with the truth. You also should not confuse church teaching with the truth. Truth and church teaching are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, they are only coincidentally the same on occasion. The trouble is, we can't tell when that coincidence happens.
Post new comment