The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionNew birth control commission papers reveal Vatican's hand
Germain Grisez papers aim to rewrite history
Mar. 23, 2011
The cover of an English language edition of Pope Paul VI's encyclical 'Humanae Vitae'
ANALYSIS
Germain Grisez, a retired moral philosophy professor who worked as an aide to a member of the papal birth control commission in the 1960s, appears to be trying to revise Vatican history with the revelation of new documents dealing with the workings of the commission.
However, the documents, apparently without intention, reveal how a powerful Vatican official, working closely with Pope Paul VI, privately maintained a close control of the process and results of the commission’s work.
The commission, callyed by Pope John XXIII in 1963 and later working on the aegis of Paul VI, eventually ended its tenure with a report asking that the church’s ban on all forms of artificial birth control be lifted.
Immediately, a second report, objecting to the commission’s final report, was called for by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and a powerful church conservative at the time.
The commission’s final report was leaked to and published in the National Catholic Reporter and appeared in other publications in 1967. A year later, after widespread expectations Paul VI would take the commission’s report to heart, he issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, affirming the church's official ban on all forms of artificial contraception.
Grisez’ documents, published in an online essay by Jesuit Fr. John Ford, a member of the papal birth control commission, attempts to make the case that the head of the commission, Dominican Fr. Henri de Riedmatten of the Vatican's office of Secretariat of State, placed undue pressure on the members of the commission to approve birth control.
In the documents, Grisez, who was brought to Rome by Ford as an assistant, appears to be endeavoring to win the argument that he and Ford -- who was added to the commission by Paul VI -- lost almost 50 years ago.
Ford and Grisez both arrived late to the commission's deliberations as part, it appears, of Cardinal Ottaviani’s late effort to salvage the church’s traditional teaching on birth control, cast in the encyclical, Casti Connubii.
Paul VI and Ottaviani had already in 1965 tried unsuccessfully to reaffirm Casti Connubi, explicitly but quietly at Vatican Council II by proposing a last minute amendment to an advanced draft of one of the final council documents. The amendment was, in effect, rejected by council representatives.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
The commission members had to have been well aware by 1965 what both Paul VI and Ottaviani wanted as a decision, but the original commission members held their ground. Over several years the original members of the commission had considered and weighed carefully the relevant theological, sociological and psychological evidence.
Based on this, they offered their decision and report to Paul VI as he requested and emphatically recommended to him that he change the Vatican's teachings to permit birth control.
What is most significant in Grisez's recent notes on Ford, perhaps an unattended admission, is not proof of any real manipulation by the chairperson, de Riedmatten, but rather clear evidence of the secret machinations Ottaviani and Paul VI employed in an effort to undercut a decision, carefully arrived at over four years by the papally appointed commission.
Grisez' biographical note includes Ford's own words stating that Paul VI privately told Ford as early as 1966 (two years before the issuance of the encyclical) in very clear terms that Paul VI was not going to change Casti Connubii, published in 1930, to permit birth control.
Grisez also describes in detail how Ottaviani, most likely with Paul VI’s blessing, met with Ford and Grisez within just a half hour of de Riedmatten's hand delivering to the pope the commission's final report favoring birth control.
Most significantly, Grisez in this recent biographical note indicated that Ottaviani, at a private meeting just after the last meeting of the commission, asked Ford and him to stay another week or so in Rome to write, in effect, a report (now the so called "minority report") for Pope Paul VI to counter the report de Riedmatten's had just delivered (now the so called "majority report").
It appears that Ottaviani only asked for this when he realized the original papally appointed commission could not be pressured to support Casti Connubii's prohibition of birth control.
While this may not surprise some, it is most noteworthy that Grisez has just given such direct proof of these secret machinations. It provides support for some previous speculations about Ottaviani's and Paul VI’s approach to several major decisions of the Vatican Council, namely, let the 2,500 plus council bishops and the commission members decide whatever they want.
If, however, Paul VI and Ottaviani disagreed with any of these decisions, Ottaviani would just get with the pope after the council bishops and commission members left Rome and undercut the decisions that Ottaviani and the pope opposed.
Grisez was personally involved in the commission's last meetings and his revisionism appears to be part of an effort by some traditionalist Catholics -- often with the Vatican's blessings -- to rewrite elements of the history of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
The commission's final support to change church teachings on birth control remains to this day an unanswered challenge to the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, published in 1968, and largely rejected by lay Catholics and clergy around the world.
While most American and European Catholics eventually appear to have disregarded the encyclical, some followed it and many others suffered pangs of conscience about birth control. More importantly, throughout the world today, in Latin America and Africa, for example, the encyclical still exercises a negative influence.
Most of the story of the commission was initially told in detail in 1985 by Robert Blair Kaiser in a book entitled, The Politics of Sex and Religion. During the sixties Kaiser had been the religion reporter for TIME magazine, and then reported for Newsweek as well.
By Kaiser’s telling, Pope John XXIII established the commission in 1962 to evaluate the moral implications of certain current reproductive issues, including the new birth control pill. Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI wanted the almost three thousand bishops and other clerics then in Rome for Vatican II to address the birth control issue even though many of these bishops expressed their desire to bring this important and pressing pastoral issue before the Council.
One major reason for both popes' preference for the commission approach seems very clear. Pope Pius XI had in 1930 already issued an encyclical, Castii Canubii, which many Catholics considered to be an "infallible" papal teaching. This encyclical had been issued in light of the post-World War I European birth rate decline resulting mainly as a consequence of the millions of young men killed in WWI.
The Vatican was then also concerned about the rise of atheistic Russian Communism. In this encyclical, Pius XI unqualifiedly condemned all forms of artificial birth control.
If the Vatican II bishops then in 1962 were to have considered and reversed the Casti Conubii prohibition issued just three decades before, the Council bishops would also, by reversing Pius XI's recent prohibition, have likely destroyed for all time the claim of popes to be infallible -- obviously a very important issue for popes seeking to preserve their spiritual power over the world's Catholic faithful.
This "infallibility doctrine" had only been declared formally at the First Vatican Council a mere sixty years before Pius XI's encyclical.
The original birth control commission had only six members in 1963 including one psychologist, no theologians, no sociologists and no married couples. The German Jesuit Josef Fuchs was added for the second meeting and Patty Crowley and her husband, Patrick, came in for the fourth meeting.
The Crowleys were active in the Catholic Family Movement. The CFM was a worldwide married Catholic couples group that then advocated the "rhythm method" for birth regulation. The rhythm method, relying on a woman's fertility cycle for birth regulation, was not then prohibited by the Vatican.
The commission met in Rome intensely off and on until 1966 under its chairman, de Riedmatten, who eventually delivered to Paul VI in 1966 the commission's final report favoring birth control.
By the time the commission delivered its final report the commission contained 15 bishops and cardinals, with all the other members reduced to the level of periti. In the end, the 15 voted in support of the commission's recommendations.
When the commission began in 1963, many of the original members were opposed to any change in Casti Conubii's prohibition of birth control. Over time, this changed.
Especially important in changing commission members' minds was an important survey Patty and Patrick Crowley did of the CFM members. The CFM members in large numbers reported movingly how the rhythm method did not work for them and how it was inhibiting intimacy and hurting their marriages.
These survey results would likely only have surprised clerics who had never been in a long-term, public, monogamous heterosexual relationship.
Eventually, the original commission members became substantially in favor of recommending changing the Vatican's policy, thereby permitting birth control.
Ottaviani, Paul VI’s s top lieutenant, evidently saw what was coming and tried to head it off with the pope’s support by a late expansion of the commission. This expansion added some known clerical supporters of Casti Connubii. One of those added was a prominent U.S. moral theologian, Jesuit Fr. John Ford, who brought with him as an advisor a young professor, Germain Grisez.
Ford died several years ago. Notwithstanding this expansion attempt, the original commission members by and large resisted this papal pressure and eventually endorsed by an overwhelming margin a confidential report in 1966 calling for the permitting birth control.
[Slevin is a retired attorney living in Long Island.]
Wouldn't it be nice if we
Wouldn't it be nice if we knew the whole truth? Who was influencing the commission, who was wining and dining them? What non-Church institutions were at play in these deliberations? What payrolls were some of the commision members on?
Milbo- If you have knowledge
Milbo-
If you have knowledge of anything unseemly about the commission members - say it and cite your sources- otherwise you are only smearing good people with innuendo. This makes me think you have nothing - only want to make the gullible suspicious.
Speaking of payrolls influencing decisions - ever heard about the Legionaries founder?
I remember a report about
I remember a report about Maciel giving a Mercedez-Benz to Cardinal Rode, and I remember another report about Maciel appearing on stage with JPII no fewer than three times.
Big Money = Access.
In Rome, too!
70ish, I hope you are not so
70ish, I hope you are not so naïve as not to believe that there is wheeling and dealing on BOTH sides of an issue. If not, I caution you not to sign anything without consulting with others who are realistic. There will be people who will try to sell you real estate among other things. Wake up and smell the coffee honey child.
The bitter (and often
The bitter (and often vicious) battles between conservative and liberal at Vatican II are best described in John W. O'Malley 2008 book 'What Happened at Vatican II. O'Malley is University Professor at Georgetown University. There is little love in the Vatican these days for the council. As a result the truth and implimentation of it recommendations remain as illusive as ever.
Trebert, Not to put too fine
Trebert, Not to put too fine a point on it, our Supreme Blesser of Bridges, has effectively put a bullet through Vatican II's head. To yearn for those heady days of popes John and Paul is to hope for a return of the popularity of crystal sets to replace the computer.
It seems so very ironic
It seems so very ironic doesn't it, that the attempt to avoid suggesting that popes are not always infallible (by contradicting Casti Connubii) is the very thing that has led so many people to conclude that popes are not always infallible? Looks like there really isn't any workable way to get around the "sense of the faithful," doesn't it?
This also suggests that pan
This also suggests that pan Roman synods ,such as Vatican II, are not only not infallible, they aren't even consistent or reliable teaching conduits the faithful can rely upon. Their decisions can be easily manipulated privately by anyone who has the power ,and Cardinal Ottaviani was THE most powerful member of the College who knew how to throw his weight around and did. In many ways, he was pope de facto.
The bishops going home are immediately and completely undercut--as they have been by popes all these decades. In essence, they're castrated by this hoax packaged to the world as the workings of the Holy Spirit. The bishops, as a college of divine institution with their own mandate, owe Rome nothing now. They have every reason to seek new leadership and to enter into communion with their brethren throughout the wider Mystical Body of Christ. Let Peter come to them rather than the other way around.
This belief in cynicism
This belief in cynicism suggested by anonymous on mar. 23, really indicates that the question of infallibility summed up in KUng's book is relevant and has really already been answered by the good sense of the people of God. The Pope may be a leader doing what he believes at the time is best, but he is only a man and his ideas often stunt the ethical growth of our ethical society. No, the popes have reversed themselves in yhr past, and they will continue to need to do so as we see that what they once believed is not all the truth and in many cases only scratches on parts of truth.
rdp46
Anonymous on Mar. 23,
Anonymous on Mar. 23, 2011.
You stated:
"This also suggests that pan Roman synods ,such as Vatican II, are not only not infallible, they aren't even consistent or reliable teaching conduits the faithful can rely upon. Their decisions can be easily manipulated privately by anyone who has the power ,and Cardinal Ottaviani was THE most powerful member of the College who knew how to throw his weight around and did. In many ways, he was pope de facto...."
----------------------------------------------------
I have to disagree with you in some places and agree with you in other places.
1) Vatican Council II was not a pan Roman synod. It was a world wide council just as much as the Council of Nicea 1, Council of Trent or Vatican I. Its decrees cannot be put back into the tube any more than toothpaste can be returned to the tube----not by any aging Pope or all the conservative young priests put together. If one cannot accept Vatican Council II----one cannot accept any of the other 20 councils or what they decided, either.
2) Cardinal Ottaviani was not the most powerful member of the Council. Others were not afraid of him and debated with him vigorously. In discussions on the Declaration on Human Liberty---Cardinal Augustin Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani clashed so heatedly---that another Cardinal had to intervene. Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne also debated with Ottaviani because Ottaviani was doing all that he could to stall the proceedings of Vatican Council II.
3) But I will agree with you that Ottaviani was among the most conservative of the conservative. He was great friends with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre---
and the two criticized the new Ordo Missae----which many traditionalist Catholics use as support in their opposition to this revision to the Roman Rite Mass---which is now being revised again in the New Roman Missal
4)Pope Paul VI was afraid of the Ottaviani and the Roman Curia----and probably joined with Cardinal Ottaviani rather than fight him in many instances.
Unlike ages past when there were little or no accounts of what went on in the Councils---the Vatican Council II has a number of accounts---even day by day.
So we know what went on and who did what. Some good accounts of the Council are:
"American Participation in the Second Vatican Council" Vincent Yzermans (Sheed & Ward, 1967)
"Council Daybook" (three volumes) edited by Floyd Anderson (National Council Welfare Confrence (1962-1966)---can only be purchased in used book stores
"Council Speeches of Vatican II" by Yves Congar, Hans Kung, and Daniel O'Hanlon (Sheed and Ward 1964)
"The Church Emerging from Vatican II" Dennis M. Doyle (Twenty-Third Publications, 1994)
Vatican Council II was not a
Vatican Council II was not a pan Roman synod. It was a world wide council just as much as the Council of Nicea 1, Council of Trent or Vatican I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No way have the councils since the mutual excommunications and separation of the 11th century been "world-wide". Anymore than the last three before the great division spoke for the Egyptian, Armenian, or other "Oriental churches".
Unlike the councils before the 11th century, the entire Church was represented with the full participation of the historic patriarchates other than ALexandria. That has not been true since then.
What Latin-rite Catholics call "ecumenical councils" since the 11th century are truly localized synods reflecting purely western religious interests. They are genuine pan-Roman or pan-western synods since they've served as little more than extensions of western theological views, largely the works of the Schoolmen; they've functioned as magnifications or extensions of growing papal domination rather than operating through a truly deliberative and consultative process with other Christian bodies in defining Christian truths to be believed by all. They simply rely upon the cooperation and the input of the Latin and Uniate clergy only--themselves extensions of the growing papal domination of western religious thought and the pope's secular power as as magistrate and war lord.
Don't forget, non-Roman communions have NEVER called a true ECUMENICAL council either. Because they can't and they know they can't. The bishop of Rome has to be in the equation as a fully functioning participant in the deliberations., not as a suzerain or "Universal Pastor" as the basis for his participation. In like manner, Rome can't call a truly ecumenical council either because the historic patriarchates either can't or won't attend because Rome won't invite them. No Christian body, east or west, today can rightfully claim to having called or participated in an ecumenical council since the 5th century. Oriental Orthodox Christians departed with Chalcedon.
Cardinal Ottaviani's real power was not so much in the Council itself, but came afterwards. Ottavian knew how to throw his weight around with Cardinals Siri and Cicognani in league with him, not to mention others. Had Ottaviani not intervened, the liturgy might well have been more radically changed.
He effectively blunted archbishop Bugnini's Commission of 30, lobbied the pope over the Swiss canon, and skillfully used delay and secrecy effectively undermining both Bugnini and the council proceedings by manipulating the pope's mind. Using a rear-guard strategy he undoubtedly had much to do with Bugnini being sent into the boondocks, and effectively manipulated the Vatican bureaucracy into becoming a lobbying effort to blunt Dutch and Swiss-inspired liturgical experimentations.
Vatican II was in large part side-tracked not by Bugnini, but by a cabal headed by Ottaviani. Who effectively cajoled and intimidated a weak and vacillating pontiff. It was a disgraceful performance making this pan-Roman synod a mockery of historic Church deliberatory proceedings. The old men in purple going home thinking the Council had accomplished what THEY AND POPE PAUL had decided, while "Pope Alfredo" threw wrenches into their deliberations; side-tracking what could have been wide-ranging reforms.
Anonymous, March, 25-----
Anonymous, March, 25----- Thank you for this!
Bugnini was suspected of
Bugnini was suspected of being a freemason accounting for his banishment to Iran -- Pope Paul VI had appointed Bugnini to the position of secretary of the Consilium, disregarding his predecessor John XXIII, who had removed him from the same position on the preparatory commission.
Not so outlandish when one considers that in 2007 Hans Kung -- Vatican II peritus -- considered an authority on what Vatican II actually taught --received the „Kulturpreis Deutscher Freimaurer -- Cultural Prize of German Freemasonry.
If Ottaviani were so powerful, how is it that the "New Mass" approved by only a minority of the bishops at the 1967 Roman Synod of Bishops was pushed through anyway?
Anonymous on Mar. 25,
Anonymous on Mar. 25, 2011.
You stated:
Vatican Council II was not a pan Roman synod. It was a world wide council just as much as the Council of Nicea 1, Council of Trent or Vatican I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No way have the councils since the mutual excommunications and separation of the 11th century been "world-wide". Anymore than the last three before the great division spoke for the Egyptian, Armenian, or other "Oriental churches".
Unlike the councils before the 11th century, the entire Church was represented with the full participation of the historic patriarchates other than ALexandria. That has not been true since then....
----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but representatives from 21 Orthodox and Protestant groups were present at Vatican Council II. And they were:
1) Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow), 2) Coptic Church (Egypt), 3) Syrian Orthodox Church, 4) Orthodox Syrian Church of the East (India), 5) Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar (India), 6)Ethiopian Church,7) Armenian Church, 8) Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 9) Old Catholic Church, 10) Angelican Communion, 11) Lutheran World Federation, 12) Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of Germany, 13) World Presbyterian Alliance, 14) Disciples of Christ, 15)Disciples of Christ, 16) Friends World Committee (Quakers), 17) International Congregational Council, 18) World Methodist Council, 19) World Convention of Churches, 20) Church of South India, 21) World Council of Churches.
In addition there were six Protestant present, that did not have official delegates. And they were:
1) The National Baptist Convention, 2) Orthodox Theological Institute of St. Serge in Paris, 3) St. Bladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York; 4) Free Protestant University in Amsterdam, 5) National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, 6) Protestant religious community of Taize in France.
And Anonymous, the rest of your blog I agree with completely!
These were observers, not
These were observers, not participants, right?
J.H., the "sense of the
J.H., the "sense of the faithful" more and more is that papal infallibility is nothing more than a weapon of mind control; a vile instrument to enhance power and authority. That there were bishops even considering changes to "Casti Connubii" is an indictment of the doctrine. It appears absurd and downright comical to be calling the faithful to give their unwavering assent to "Humane Vitae" at the very time Catholics are leaving the Church in record numbers precisely because they have rejected the Ottaviani/Paul VI teachings.
Actually, what we witnessed
Actually, what we witnessed was a huge leap forward by many Catholics in the level of their consciousness. Before Vatican II, the institution ruled and people were happy with a benevolent, patriarchal power figure who exercised his authority over people at an external level. Within that perspective, "infallibility" made a certain amount of sense, offering some sense of confidence. Following psychologist Brian Hall, at that point, the average Catholic saw the world as a problem and humbly waited for the word of permission from an infallible pope.
But before and during the Council, many Catholics had begun to see the world as a project, a place where we could freely go, choosing among options, with authority exercised internally, from within. As baptized people, they had begun to listen to the Holy Spirit and their own consciences within the reality of their own world. The Council itself actually headed us in that direction.
But Pope Paul and etc.. could not move on to that point. They did not dare let go of their external authority and trust faithful Catholics living in a modern world to make good decisions about the meaning of life. So, Pope Paul and the other lovers of external power published the encyclical. And millions of Catholics made that leap from blindly following the external authority to listening to their prayerfully formed consciences within the context of their own situation.
Yes, as I read I thought, "O
Yes, as I read I thought, "O happy fault" that led Catholics to rely on their own well-informed consciences. Yet how regrettable the suffering and agonizing soul-searching of so many married committed Catholics.
Well-informed consciences?
Well-informed consciences? From where? From Oprah?
For Catholics the guide for the conscience is the Bible and Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium means the official teaching of the Church approved by the Pope. Even the documents of the Council don't mean anything until they are signed by the Pope.
So much for the Holy Spirit.
So much for the Holy Spirit.
Uh, "Father", Catholics
Uh, "Father", Catholics decided to follow their own consciences, and not the conscience that had been brainwashed by the church. You know, "Father", the conscience where the individual and God reside, not where the church and the individual reside. The massacre of historical teaching on 'conscience' via the latest screed by the church where conscience is only valid when it has an imprimatur from church 'teaching' is a bold-faced lie.
Catholic parents have chosen responsible parenthood, primarily by insuring that they do not have an annual appointment in the labor and delivery room. Catholics practice contraception at the same rate as other faith groups, if not more so particularly because the notion of responsible parenthood includes the fostering of full development of their children, and they have been wise enough to realize that children fulfill their potential via parental ----individual----- attention a notion the church comes down on since individuals are always and forever subordinate to groups.
The fact that Catholics do not confuse the "magisterium" with Jesus Christ, the fact that Catholics engage in moral autonomy, the fact that Catholics have a deep spirituality associated with an ---adult--- relationship with God infuriates the hierarchy to this day.
Finally, it's been recently stated that the Muslim population will grow by leaps and bounds over the next twenty or so years. Read this: It won't be long before the Vatican comes out with yet another encyclical on why Catholic parents must, absolutely must do everything in their power to insure that they (Catholics) are not outnumbered. It won't be long before fulminating threats of hell, issuances over "mortal" sin, etc come into play in yet another sad attempt to intimidate the laity and inevitably, that upcoming encyclical will yet again be blown to a pathetic dustbin and rightfully so.
"For Catholics the guide for
"For Catholics the guide for the conscience is the Bible and Magisterium of the Church."
Francisco,
Ya might want to read up a bit more on this..........the Spirit is the guide. The Bible was brought forth by the community through the Spirit.
Loyalty Testing
In the final analysis, then, the wisdom and the judgment of the Church are important but they are not supremely important. Therefore, the genuinely important role of the Church teaching must never be allowed to deteriorate into a “loyalty test” for Catholics. Is a catholic who finds himself or herself able to agree with the judgment of the Church a better catholic than one who cannot? We must never say so. For just as to use Church teaching properly is to celebrate it, to ask it to be more than it is is to destroy it. And to make of the valuable and cherished source of moral wisdom a tool for ecclesiastical discipline or a measure of religious fidelity is to betray it. Indeed, to see the moral teaching of the Church as a test of catholic loyalty is ultimately to violate the nature of the Church, the nature of humanity, and surely the nature of conscience. Pg 118 “Principles of Catholic Morality” Timothy E. O’Connell
St. Augustine, fourth century,
“The church has many that God does not have and God has many that the Church does not have”
Cheers,
No, Father Francisco,
No, Father Francisco, informed consciences comes through the gospels and the Holy spirit, who infuses all baptized Christians, including baptized non Catholics. Never mind the Magisterium, who are only for preserving their control and power over the faithful, and the material assets. There were very few and far in between, who have done for the people what they were actually called to do.
No pope has veto power over a
No pope has veto power over a decision reached by the world's successors to the apostles in council, no matter what a previous pope has said or a previous council has said. You can shout to the moon that Vatican II was pastoral and not infallible, but the sensus fidelium have already voted with their consciences, and often with their money and their feet as JP the lessor and B16 have done everything in their power to repeal what the Holy Spirit ordained.
As to Humanae Vitae, it is the most sinister encyclical in at least the last millennium. It has been warped to the point that doctors can not save the life of a doomed mother through abortion and a woman with a serious healtgh condition ie the mother in Phoenix, can not be sterilized to prevent recurrence of another episode requiring another abortion. And don't try to tell me she should refrain from sex because of Humanae Vitae
All true, and yet "Father" is
All true, and yet "Father" is most likely one of those (from the article) "[C]lerics who had never been in a long-term, public, monogamous heterosexual relationship.... ."
One may as well ask a blind man to describe the color "red".
indeed... and to think that
indeed... and to think that God has had it right all this time... NOTHING stands between us and God... St. Paul said so!
The notion that every papal
The notion that every papal encyclical is infallible is indefensible.Vatican II reversed much of Pius IX condemnation of the modern world.
On the issue of family
On the issue of family planning and birth control, church lost touch with the people and lost moral standing. Church talk now is so much water over the dam. How can the hierarchy ever expect to regain the trust of people when it behaves so disrespectfully toward them? The action of the people in rejecting Humanae vitae is more damning than words.
Family planning and birth control were then and are now critically urgent in view of the severely degraded condition of global ecologies from the run-away population pressures of the human species that threaten the radical exploitation and suffocation of nature’s irreplaceable living-food-systems. To put God to the test in this way is utter folly!!! http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979155429
Thank you Pat!
Thank you Pat!
Paul VI never published
Paul VI never published another encyclical after Humanae Vitae. The laity basically ignored it, with something like 90% of Catholics practicing some form of birth control. I cannot think of a single action which has caused more damage and eroded the credability of the Vatican. Paul did not push the issue in the ten years between the encyclical and his death. JP II pushed the issue, appointing Bishops who tried to actually enforce it. No matter what they do, the laity will not obey. Why? Perhaps because they know how very wrong the Encyclical was. How very little it knows about real married life, the give and take, the nuances, etc. of marriage and sexuality within marriage.
The Trads can scream and yell and threaten, but they have lost this battle and they know it. Bishops like Vasa try to set the clock back, but it will not work. You would think that they would drop this issue, but they seem stuck on it and their adherence to a failed position will only cause the loss of even more credability, especially in the wake of the clerical sexual abuse scandals.
Where do we go from here? The Vatican will continue to rant and threaten and the laity will continue to ignore them. Few members of the clergy have the guts to speak the truth any more.
In the 16th and 17th centuries the Vatican focused on astronomy, today they seem obsessed with gynecology. We basically are at an impasse. The smarter Bishops know this, but cannot speak the truth, so we have a sort of Potempkin Village of pretending. In a world of AIDS for the Vatican to condemn condoms erodes any common sense and charity. Most young people laugh at them. They have become a joke. We need some bold action, but don't expect it from the men who play dress up with Cappa Magnas and lace.
There are plenty of other
There are plenty of other 'religions' available if you are unhappy with Catholicism!
Are we Catholics or
Are we Catholics or Papists?
That's a serious question. Do we define ourselves by being in communion with the broad community of fellow Catholics worldwide who share our basic beliefs as defined in the Creed, or do we define ourselves by devotion to a single man elected by a small group of other men?
I'm a Catholic who'd like to see the Church escape the tyranny of the Papists.
Catholics means Papists - if
Catholics means Papists - if you insist to use that word. Where Peter is, there is the Church. If you reject the Pope you are a Protestant - it is defined so for five centuries.
Dear Father Francisco, This
Dear Father Francisco,
This is part of the problem you seem to believe in the infallibility of definitions that are five centuries old. As a scientist and a physician, I can not do that and as a Catholic, I see yours as a very false argument. We as the People of God are ever challenged to grow in our knowledge of what the mind of God, as revealed to each of us by the Holy Spirit, tells us in the present. As a group of finite beings, there is no knowing all THE TRUTH, but we must always seek more truth. For us to simply believe in all that has been defined by finite minds of the past, is failing to listen to the revelations of the Holy Spirit to us in the present. It is a very different world today so I suggest we all listen to discover more of God’s truth today.
Francisco, "Catholics means
Francisco,
"Catholics means Papists" Uh.....don't you mean ROMAN Catholics? Catholic still means:
* universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
* pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
............unless the pope infallibly changed that definition :)
Cheers,
If I thought this way, I
If I thought this way, I would consider it idolatry. This is not to imply that you should change your opinion; only that I am morally obligated not to agree.
Anon;; We are not leaving
Anon;; We are not leaving Catholicism . As in any sick family we will stay and try to reform/heal the pathological elements in the family. Have hope, you will not be left with this inept leadership..
Sorry but you can't rid of us
Sorry but you can't rid of us that easily.
Very much like the jingoism about leaving the US if you don't love it.
It is exactly because we do believe in some form of the Sacramental Life that we remain and work to 'Ask the accurate questions.'
PAX
And there is a more Christian
And there is a more Christian Catholicism available than that foisted upon the "faithful" by the ecclesiastical power structure whose main goal in life seems to be control, power, autocracy and all of those very pretty clothes that they run around in. Oh, yes, the housing and chauffeurs are sort of neat, too.
How do you say "whited sepulchres" in Latin?
So anonymous, why don't you
So anonymous, why don't you join one of those other religions that you keep suggesting that so many others should join. You obviously are not happy that over 90% of your brother and sister catholics use birth control! You are also obviously dissatisfied that your brother and sister catholics would demand more ethical and personal integrity from the Episcopacy. So instead of suggesting others move on, give it some thought as to who if anyone should. There are plenty who are moving past believing in the integrity of our Bishops and they are mostly the educated young members of the Church. So many in the Munich area refused to anymore identify with the Church because they thought it better to keep tax resources out of the hands of the Bishops. So please consider what you say when you ask people to move on, or just move on your self if you can not understand that Jesus‘ saving and loving teachings are for all not just for those who love dead languages and live by canon law.
There is no absence in the
There is no absence in the Catholic Church today of growing fundamentalism, self-righteousness and exclusivism, along with an anti-Christian and militant attitude on the question of human sexuality. The latter particularly as it affects abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Religious tolerance has clearly given way to name calling, angry accusations and even public excommunication. At the same time the Catholic Church remains in serious denial by refusing to address the endemic and systemic problems related to the ongoing sexual abuse crisis. Politically the Church refuses to acknowledge the relevant needs of the people it serves. While the “People of God” have spoken, the patriarchal Church remains silent in response; preferring monologue over true dialogue. In an effort to blame its problems on modernism, relativism and secularism the Church continues to block the progress and enthusiasm that was generated by Vatican II. Obviously there are many more issues that contribute to the current demise of the Catholic Church, but these can only be resolved with kindness, tolerance, and the love that God offers to ALL his people so that they may become ONE. Let’s thus begin with dropping a self-righteous attitude with the knowledge that God (not always the Church) meets us where we are not were others would have us be.
see also: http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-church-and-intole...
Austin does not come across
Austin does not come across as (your words) "unhappy with Catholicism."
Instead, you effectively are equating Catholicism with ecclesial BS, the very kind of crap that increasing numbers of Catholics see as fundamentally incompatible with the gospel message.
There are plenty of other
There are plenty of other 'religions' available if you are unhappy with Catholicism!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, you can upchuck on gobbling down too many pies in the pie-easting contest. It doesn't follow you stop attending county fairs because of it.
Nope. Austin is absolutely
Nope.
Austin is absolutely right and those who think for themselves will continue to challenge the bellicosity of the hierarchy over this.
And the hierarchy will continue to fulminate at the mouth, without realizing that Catholics have grown up and engage in moral autonomy.
Snark such as yours is always defeated in content. Or haven't you noticed?
What do you say to one who
What do you say to one who does know about the "nuances" of real married life and at the same time embraces the Church's teaching on birth control.
I've been married 21 years and have 5 children. Started out using birth control because I didn't know there was anything else. (This after 13 years of Catholic education and being married in the church!) Once I discovered the truth and got off the pill, I felt I started living a Catholic life. Everything became integrated. Granted, it is near impossible to live Humanae Vitae without living ALL the other church teachings. There are crosses...but we are sanctified by the cross if we embrace it. Paraphrasing St. Paul...This is God's will for us-our Sanctification!
Most of my relatives and friends do use birth control and they have ended up with very small families (0-2 children). Almost none of them practice the faith. I think you have it backward. People don't leave the Church because they don't agree with a particular teaching. They stop practicing some aspect of the faith and then look for a reason to leave the church.
I have heard from other
I have heard from other people who say natural family planning has made their lives better, and I accept that it does. But to say that it will make EVERYONE's lives better and marriages stronger is simply inaccurate. Also, your assumption about people who "look for a reason to leave the church" is also inaccurate. Most of us are desperately looking for a reason to stay. We love our parishes and the sense of community we find there. And we love the wisdom found in much of Catholic doctrine. What drives us out is conservatives' insistence that there is only ONE way to be a good Catholic--THEIR way.
Great piece Austin. "Few
Great piece Austin.
"Few members of the clergy have the guts to speak the truth any more".
T'is indeed a pity because I've known many clergy down through the years who privately dismiss the Church's teachings on birth control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Of course, there are always qualifiers in the case of some issues, but the point being, they dare not speak out in their official capacity as pastors or theologians.
1. How many people actually
1. How many people actually read HV in 1968 and since? How many of you commenting here have actually read it?? I would venture to guess less than 10 percent of those bashing it. If you were to read it, you would see just how correct Paul VI was in his predictions of what a contraceptive culture would lead to: wide spread abortion, divorce, promiscuity, disease, women being used as sexual objects, etc. Do we have any of those problems now??
2. A major part of the blame for Catholics not following teaching is not because of the teaching itself but because of the ignorance and willful disregard of teaching by organizations such as NCR. This rag leaked a document that was not complete and was basically telling people the Church was changing and contraception was ok. When the decision was made and it wasn't to NCR and liberal liking, you started and cheered on the dissent. For that, those responsible will be held account--not in this lifetime but the next. Jesus said something about leading others into sin...
3. The talk about a "high level Vatican operative" changing what the bishops and people wanted on an issue sounds a lot like Bugnini pushing his own agenda through by lying to both the Pope and the Consilium.
Today (not necessarily in
Today (not necessarily in 1966) the great difficulty in any permitting of artificial birth control is the sub rosa permission this might give to governments to coerce birth control and even abortion, as do some governments today (notably Vietnam, China, and, in granting foreign aid, the US). To go back to the questions of 1966, is contraception intrinsically evil? Two thirds of the Commission said no, most famously Fr. Fuchs, who changed his position on the strength of the testimony of the Crowleys and others, from the CFM. On this I think they are correct. Can the magisterium "change" a teaching that it had proposed in the ordinary magisterium for about 300 years? Today, my answer is: it must consider the evil that a change might cause. Believers in Jesus Christ need to present a counterweight to the utilitarian/anti-life position of governments. I, too, am worried about the rewriting of the history of Vatican II, especially because, in saying that all was continuity from before the Council until after, historians do not take into account the change in the manner in which theologians and others were disciplined by the Holy See for views that seemed contrary to the Church's present interests. The long silencing of John Courtney Murray, SJ, and the Dominicans and Jesuits of "la nouvelle theologie" give witness to this change, which the hermeneutic of continuity cannot explain.
Bob, you said, "Can the
Bob, you said, "Can the magisterium "change" a teaching that it had proposed in the ordinary magisterium for about 300 years? Today, my answer is: it must consider the evil that a change might cause. Believers in Jesus Christ need to present a counterweight to the utilitarian/anti-life position of governments."
The People of God already changed their minds about Birth Control over 50 years ago. After all it took the good men of the Vatican over 300 years to decide that Copernicus and Galileo were indeed correct that the earth does rotate around the sun. The problems that the Church in their attempt to proclaim infallibility is that the knowledge is increasing at exponential speed and communication is also very fast. So when the Pope or any one else makes a mistake, it is imperative if they wish to maintain any credibility that they do not wait 300 years to admit their very human mistakes! We are all including every Pope and Bishop all finite beings that are ever growing and developing our knowledge based society. When an item of faith is no longer believable it must be reconsidered or there will never again be any creditability in what the Episcopate says.
There seems to be a concerted
There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of Catholic conservatives to make a case that nothing important changed at Vatican II, that the council was just business as usual, and the "spirit of Vatican II" is a myth concocted by liberals to serve their agenda. This movement seems to be gaining strength now that practically all the original delegates to the council are dead and cannot refute these assertions.
I can tell that you haven't
I can tell that you haven't read the documents of Vatican II in full, have you?
There's really no excuse. They are all freely available.
You should try reading all the addresses that were given before the meetings as well. Those are also freely available on the Vatican website, although you'll need to wash the text through the Google translator.
Once you read these you will see that what Vatican II actually said and taught is at times VERY DIFFERENT from what the 'spirit of Vatican II' crowd would like you to think.
Actually, the documents of
Actually, the documents of Vatican II are consensus documents. That is, they represent more than one position at the same time. So each side can go through the documents and cherry pick the quotes that back them up.
A more sound way would be to gauge the direction or trajectory the Vatican Council was going. And that was definetly from conservative to liberal. There are some good recent books that show this.
I think that entirely depends
I think that entirely depends on how you define 'liberal'. If by that you mean that the Church is endeavoring to bring the Word of God to the world in new ways so that all my know salvation through Christ in His Church, you and I would be in agreement.
If by that you mean they were pushing for contraception, acceptance of homosexual acts as non-sinful, approval of infanticide, etc. as NCR writers usually mean, no.
Cherry pick? I suppose it would be possible to cherry pick anything, but there is nothing in the documents of Vatican II that goes against ANY established doctrine or moral teaching at all, period. People who try to claim otherwise can't cherry pick the documents, as they have nothing to quote which would support their position in the least.
This is why so called 'progressives' usually avoid quoting the actual documents at all.
Actually, Pete, you should
Actually, Pete, you should read the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis humanae), but only after reading the documents of Trent, Vatican I, and the writings of the later 19th Century Popes. I think you would find quite a change took place at Vatican II.
Pete the greek on Mar. 24,
Pete the greek on Mar. 24, 2011.
You stated:
"I can tell that you haven't read the documents of Vatican II in full, have you?
There's really no excuse. They are all freely available.
You should try reading all the addresses that were given before the meetings as well. Those are also freely available on the Vatican website, although you'll need to wash the text through the Google translator.
Once you read these you will see that what Vatican II actually said and taught is at times VERY DIFFERENT from what the 'spirit of Vatican II' crowd would like you to think."
------------------------------------------------
There's far more to what happened at Vatican Council II than just reading the finished products.
Have you read any of the biographies of those who were influential before and during the Council, and whose ideas developed at Vatican Council II and afterward? People like:
1)Fr. Lambert Beaudin, OSB---liturgical reformer
2) Fr. Virgil Michel, OSB---founder of the the American Liturgical Movement
3)Fr. Romano Guardini---parish priest, and early liturgical reformer
4)Josef Jungmann, SJ---liturgical scholar
5)Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP---biblical scholar
6)Prosper Gueranger, OSB----liturgical reformer.
There were many whose God-given gifts and writings shone before the Council and encouraged (and often recognized by Pope John XXIII) during the Council---helped to establish the 'Spirit of Vatican II' and they were:
1) Cardinal Augustin Bea, SJ---President of the Secretariat for Promoting
Christian Unity---scholar and statesman
2) Henri de Lubac, SJ---Historian and author of almost 40 books
3) John L. McKenzie, SJ---American Biblical scholar
4) Yves Conger, OP----Theologian & Historian----major reformer
5) John Courtney Murray, SJ---American Theologian (rewrote the Declaration
on Religious Liberty final version)
6) Pierre Benoit, OP---Biblical scholar
7) Karl Rahner, SJ---German Theologian
8) Edward Schillebeeckx, OP--- Dutch Theologian
9) Hans Kung---German Theologian
10)Godfrey Dickmann, OSB---Theologian (on postconciliar commission on document
on the liturgy)
11)Bernard Haring, CSSF---German Theologian
12)Jean Danielou, SJ---French Patristic scholar
Unless you know the writings of these men and their influence----you know NOTHING about the Spirit of Vatican Council II (or the documents either). According to the Canadian theologian, Bernard Lonergan---who taught for many years in Rome, one major shift in thought that occured at Vatican Council II---was the shift from classicism to historical consciousness. Why is that important?
1) Right of religious liberty (Leo XIII condemned that concept)
2) John XXIII's encyclical "Pacem in Terris" open to recognizing the 'signs
of the times.'
a) human and social relations
b) women in public life
c) relationships between independent nations
3) Gaudium et spes (Part 2)
a) marriage and family in the modern world
b) socioeconomic life in the modern world
c) political life in the modern world
In trying to learn about the spirit of Vatican Council II---try reading "A Spirituality of Wholeness: The New Look at Grace" by Bill Huebsch. This is based on much of the work of Karl Rahner during and after the Council.
I truly think a major point
I truly think a major point is being missed here. Even at the very first Church Council, the council of Jerusalem there was a LOT of disagreement. The Apostle Paul and James were RADICAL. They were for changing the whole cast-system the Jewish people have had for countless generations. They want to let gentiles into the Church AND not require them to be circumcised. PETER the head of the church, went into this council truly believing that they should embrace the law and be circumcised to become Christians. Paul fought it. THIS was a RADICAL idea and I am sure there was a lot of twisting of arms behind the scenes. In the end, the head of the Church Stood and said…and I am of course paraphrasing… NO, they do not have to embrace the law and be circumcised. After much disagreement, arguing, and I am CERTAIN after much prayer, more arguing, vying, vetting, etc. the Holy Spirit led the church to its decision. IT is all a PROCESS. The HOLY SPIRIT, throughout the centuries has used IMPERFECT men… even POPES… to arrive at decisions of faith and morals. Peter’s mind was CHANGED, the pope is not perfect, and Papal Infallibility is a process of reading, research, discussion, arguing, vying, vetting, and MOST importantly … PRAYING! Through it all I (WE) believe the HOLY SPIRIT is the one who determines the outcome so that the Pope can make an infallible decision. (I do not think this one is actually one of infallibility or not. I only recall a pope ever declaring that once or twice … example… the Immaculate Conception.) No matter what the outcome is, it is the decision. You can call it whatever you like, infallibility, coercion, or whatever. HOWEVER, the final decision on faith and morals stops and the throne of Peter… not at the street corner, not with a Catholic mob, Not the USCCB, and not the National Catholic Register.
Talk about
Talk about Misinformation!
Paul was not an apostle. James was head of the church. Peter gave the final summation and James delivered the Judgement at the Council of Jerusalem.
@Anonymous: Paul was an
@Anonymous:
Paul was an apostle. An apostle was someone who witnessed the Risen Christ and proclaimed Him. Paul qualifies on both counts.
Furthermore, Paul refers to himself explicitly as an apostle in his letters.
Paul was not an Apostle?
Paul was not an Apostle? True, he wasn't one of the original 12, but Church History, Hagiography and custom has held his title to be "Apostle." Most of his letters begin by affirming this.
Wow, you all REALLY don't
Wow, you all REALLY don't like the 6th Commandment...
Wow, you all REALLY don't
Wow, you all REALLY don't like the 6th commandment
The sixth commandment, as I recall, says 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.'
adultery noun
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse: she was committing adultery with a much younger man .
(From Oxford Dictionary of English in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
How, Pete the greek (sic), is your comment relevant to this debate?????
Well, really, what difference
Well, really, what difference does it make what some commission says anyway? The birth control commission had no magisterial authority. Trotting people before this commission to complain about problems in their marriages allegedly because of the Church's teaching on contraception is no reason to change the teaching. If the Church had a commission on assisted suicide, it wouldn't be difficult to find an army of people to describe bodily pain which makes them want to kill themselves. Would this be a reason for the Church to change her teaching on assisted suicide? Hardly! The same logic applies to the birth control teaching.
The birth control commission was a farce. They never even addressed the essential moral issue, namely that the Church's moral teaching cannot change. The Church's problems started with John XXIII & his folly in calling into question the Church's perennial teaching on birth control by setting up this commission.
You try soooo hard poor
You try soooo hard poor Paulte to convince us that the Roman parade goes on. DON'T look behind you or count the children per Roman Catholic family.
So, Paulte, the Popes are
So, Paulte, the Popes are only infallible if they agree with you?
I wonder if you have ever had a real and deep relationship with a woman.
Let me guess. You are also a
Let me guess.
You are also a Strict Constructionist as it applies to the US Constitution.
Not exactly, Paulte. Birth
Not exactly, Paulte. Birth control can SAVE lives--the lives of women. Suicide takes a life every time. Birth control simply postpones conception until a time that gives both the mother and child the best chance at survival.
As much as I love it, I have to admit that our church is tone deaf when it comes to the unique vulnerabilities of women. As church teaching stands right now, as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her life is forfeit. To defend herself against a dangerous pregnancy by using birth control causes her to be in contradiction with church teaching. To defend her life by having an abortion, even if the baby has no chance to survive, results in her being labeled a murderer.
Why are the lives of women of so little value to our church?
Motherboard, I'll take a shot
Motherboard, I'll take a shot at your last question on why the lives of women are of so little value to the church.
In a word, it is because of the continuing saga of "it's all because of Eve". The church has yet to see women outside the framework of this fable in the garden and has blamed women for each and every problem plaguing humanity since its incepton.
"It's all because of Eve" is and will continue to be at the root of all the hatred and fear of women and that will render women the place she collectively holds in the church, and that is at best secondary to men.
Because only celibate men sit
Because only celibate men sit in a closed room in the Vatican and make the rules from a life experience where the only woman they knew and loved was their mother. They have no clue in the world of the importance of spontaneous carnal intimacy in a marriage; and they see marriage solely as an institution to crank out as many children as possible, irregardless of the physical and mental consequences to the mother, so as to generate an adequate pool of potential priests.
Absolutely, Motherboard! The
Absolutely, Motherboard! The prevailing attitudes toward women, their roles, and their overall value as children of God is something that needs to be adressed. Acknowledging the full value the full value of women, beyond their reproductive capabilites is not a "cultural pressure", or a silly complaint of "modernism".
Post new comment