« United 93 | Main | Easter Bunny Arrested! »
April 28, 2006
Weigel on The Truce of 1968
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones, here.
1968 was the year that I "got saved" in the Baptist church and was baptized. I was seven, and at the time I'm certain that I thought everyone was a Baptist.
Even if I had been a Catholic at the time, though, I would have been too young to take note of the portentious "Truce of 1968". Like the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam, it was one of those historic events of which I was blissfully unaware, but the effects of which would resonate through the rest of my life.
In THIS ARTICLE over at Catholic Exchange, George Weigel explains The Truce;
"In 1968, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington, D.C., disciplined nineteen priests who had publicly dissented from Pope Paul VI’s teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Three years later, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle should lift canonical penalties against those priests who informed the cardinal privately that they agreed that the Church’s teaching on “the objective evil of contraception” was “an authentic expression of (the) magisterium.” The Congregation explicitly avoided requiring that the priests, who had dissented publicly, retract their dissent publicly. A new biography of O’Boyle, Steadfast in the Faith (Catholic University of America Press), suggests that the decision not to require a public retraction was made by Paul VI himself."
To many who were adult Catholics at the time, the "Truce" was a watershed moment, in a decade of watershed moments.
At the time, it was one of a number signs that the Church hierarchy lacked the will or the courage to discipline dissident priests and bishops. It appeared to be almost paralyzed with fear of schism.
They appeared to be intensely concerned with keeping the modernists in the Church, with the result that we now have a Church full of modernists, each worshipping his own conscience.
Weigel's opinion is always worth reading, and for me, learning about The Truce was a valuable history lesson.
Posted by Tim Jones in The Church | Permalink
Comments
Having been born in 1975, I had not been aware of this. But, Weigel's assertion makes a lot of sense.
So many Catholics cause scandal to non-Catholics by not really living their faith. I've seriously talked with several non-Christians who've never actually met anyone who truly subscribed to Church teaching. One of these, a self-declared neopagan, actually has both a priest and a nun in her immediate family, and yet, even THEY didn't believe the teaching of the Magisterium. And it actually really bothered her, even though she'd left the Faith.
And yet, at places like the Religious Education Congress and publications like Commonweal, dissident cafeteria Katholics strut their stuff, leading those who don't know any better down the wrong path.
It's really sad.
Posted by: Jared | Apr 28, 2006 10:49:25 AM
What schism? Maybe in europe (remember the near Jansenist schism?) but in America? Where would the liberals go for theirconferences? What bishops would actually break with Rome and set up a counter church? Reminds me of a boy whose parents were afraid that he was going to run away,so they asked me to dissuade him.When I told him he should not run away from home,he responded,"Why would I do that? Everything is there." There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
Posted by: franklyn mcafee | Apr 28, 2006 10:57:58 AM
What schism? Maybe in europe (remember the near Jansenist schism?) but in America? Where would the liberals go for theirconferences? What bishops would actually break with Rome and set up a counter church? Reminds me of a boy whose parents were afraid that he was going to run away,so they asked me to dissuade him.When I told him he should not run away from home,he responded,"Why would I do that? Everything is there." There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
Posted by: franklyn mcafee | Apr 28, 2006 10:58:38 AM
Very sad indeed, Jared.
I am also too young to recall the truce, and I believe that it struck a serious blow to Catholic identity in the US. Even "Practicing" or "Conservative" Catholics (Sean Hannity comes to mind) can openly dissent to the teaching without doing much damage to their Catholic identity... Mainly because everyone "knows" that no one really follows that doctrine anyway.
While the dissenters existed prior to the Truce (my mom recalls an organized walkout staged during Mass at her DC area parish in protest of Humanae Vitae), I believe the core of the damage was done to run-of-the mill Catholics in the pews. If the doctrine had been properly taught, I have no doubt that many more than the current approximate 10% of Catholics would observe the church's teachings.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 28, 2006 11:05:24 AM
Evidently, Pope Paul VI and his advisors were keen to avoid de jure schism, and, for their pains, ended up with de facto schism in most dioceses of the U.S.
Posted by: Fr. Larry Gearhart | Apr 28, 2006 11:12:00 AM
There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
I think that's exactly the point of the article. Without the truce, would they have stayed? Weigel's theory suggests that in a different atmosphere they might have been forced to leave or have been kicked out.
Also, keep in mind that the example of O'Boyle took place un the US, but the focus of the Vatican has often been much more Eurocentric than focused on the Church in America. While there may not have been an American schism, in Europe it could have been a very real possibility.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 28, 2006 11:12:51 AM
It wasn't so much a truce as a surrender.
Posted by: BillyHW | Apr 28, 2006 11:13:31 AM
but make sure to avoid those evil rad trads!
Posted by: tim | Apr 28, 2006 11:14:10 AM
Franklyn: I doubt any bishop would actually do that. They'll say their in communion with the Pope, but they won't teach whatever they choose not to teach. They won't promote whatever it is that they don't want to promote. They're too American, and not Catholic enough.
Posted by: Andrew S. | Apr 28, 2006 11:15:09 AM
I attended Cardinal O'Boyle's funeral many years ago. It was all very nice, with plenty of pageantry, but everyone tip-toed around the one thing his late Eminence was most eminent for, until it was almost all over. That was when Cardinal O'Connor offered a eulogy, in which he saluted O'Boyle for having been "a lion of courage" in his defense of Humanae vitae. And he was right. It was appalling how O'Boyle went out on a limb in the defense of the magisterium, and got exactly zero support from his fellow bishops, either in the United States or in Rome.
While there may not have been an American schism, in Europe it could have been a very real possibility.
And exactly how would have been worse than the present abandonment of the Faith in Europe?
Posted by: Seamus | Apr 28, 2006 11:34:34 AM
Personal note:
OK, this is weird. Last night I decided that today I'd look into Humanae Vitae more carefully and get some questions answered (which I have done just now).
This morning, I've seen two explicit, top-of-the-order references to Humanae Vitae from my two daily sources of Catholic info.
OK, God... I get it. :)
Posted by: JohnD | Apr 28, 2006 11:41:04 AM
Dittos to Jared. I was born and raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through the end of high school. Yet it wasn't until I got to a secular college that I actually met young, intelligent Catholics who actually believed what the Church taught. It was a revelation to me. Initially I assumed they must be mindless robots, but dang, they could tap dance circles around me intellectually. I was actually a little angry at the time to learn that I'd been deprived of the church's rich and beautiful teachings in favor of faith sharing and a very limited version of social justice.
Posted by: Margaret | Apr 28, 2006 11:48:32 AM
Fr. Larry Gearhart RE--de facto schism: Y'know, I used that exact term about a month ago to describe the horrors wrought by Cardinal Mahony in our current locale. The question I had at the time I still have: how far can this man (and his like) "push the envelope" before Rome steps in? I've resigned myself to the fact that there won't be any fraternal correction on the part of the other bishops, but geez, does Arinze not see what we're dealing with here?
Margaret: I hear you. I'm desperately playing catchup intellectually. Thank God, for guys like Jimmy Akin.
Posted by: Jared | Apr 28, 2006 12:00:59 PM
There has been a massive exchange going on the last 2 days between the boards at Dawn Eden (really her comments section)and Feministe, discussing what constitutes being a real Catholic. (I got involved as well.)
Essentially, it comes down to the modernists, feminists, and fallen-away "Katholics" claiming to know Catholicism better than recent converts to Catholicism, all the while accusing them of being "pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope".
The big problem is, again, scandal - they are claiming to be Catholic (even though some of them admit they have fallen away from the faith, but still identify themselves as Catholics) while promoting things like abortion and birth control, which just causes confusion to those that are uninformed about or weak in the faith.
Posted by: Jamie Beu | Apr 28, 2006 12:27:04 PM
And exactly how would have been worse than the present abandonment of the Faith in Europe?
Once again, this is the point of Weigel's article. I agree that the Compromise was a mistake. I believe that it is perhaps the biggest stain on Paul VI's legacy. Whether out of fear, weakness, or poor judgement, the Compromise of 1968 led to the present state of dissent in the Church today.
However, I do not altogether dismiss the possibility that an official European schism might have taken place. Perhaps one could argue that more discouraging than dissent itself, is the number of people who have left severed all ties with the Church, and whose children and grandchildren will never know the Catholic faith.
What is worse for the Church? Schism or heresy? The Church weathered Jansenism, Arianism, and Gnosticism (well, the latter at least until DVC). The Schism with the Eastern Church and the rise of Protestantism essentially caused permanent rifts.
Perhaps Paul VI made the choice between dealing with a Modernist Heresy and a Modernist Schism.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 28, 2006 12:49:55 PM
When I first read “The Courage to Be Catholic,” I was alarmed, very alarmed. Specifically, what George Weigel states: “The Truce of 1968 taught theologians, priests, and other Church professionals that dissent from authoritative teaching was, essentially, cost-free. The Truce of 1968 taught bishops inclined to defend authoritative Catholic teaching vigorously that they should think twice about doing so.”
In some ways, the article reflects a dilemma I have about coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. What’s worse: having little or no teaching authority, or having one that so many seem to ignore? Perhaps, better to remain within my present Protestant denomination.
Posted by: ELCA'er | Apr 28, 2006 1:21:10 PM
ELCA'er -
I would argue that the main question is whether the teaching authority is legitimate, rather than whether enough people are listening.
The teaching authority of the Church comes from Christ himself. We can't really choose to step outside of that authority and remain faithful.
If your point is that there are not enough people who acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church, then it would be odd not to do so yourself and therefore add to the problem.
The answer is to acknowledge the legitimate authority, and submit to it, rather than looking for the option that we find the least frustrating personally.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 28, 2006 2:00:43 PM
I was alive in 1968.
Heck, I was even alive in 1958.
I think Weigel overemphasizes these events in Washington in 1968.
It almost sounds like something cosmically significant.
It was not.
Can anyone please tell me when there was NOT dissent within the Church, sometimes made public, sometimes even between bishops and cardinals?
You also might want to read the actual document that the American Bishops published, Human Life in Our Day, which sparked the American debate. See how much of it you agree with. Read especially these two sections:
- The encyclical and conscience
- Norms of licit theological dissent
It could be said that the dissenting priests were, in fact, simply following the guidelines of the American Bishops' own document. That seems to have been the conclusion from Rome.
And don't forget that 1968 was a very hot year in DC. Hot as in burning. Lots of buildings burning. Riots. After MLK, Jr. was murdered on April 4. Riots, destruction, mayhem in many American cities that summer. And protests going on about the Viet Nam war (which also had the attention of American Bishops).
1968 was a very bad year in Washington, DC, for many reasons. People were very "uptight," including many clergy.
-
Posted by: Old Zhou | Apr 28, 2006 2:05:49 PM
Cardinal O'Boyle was a lion.My spritual director was close to his eminence and he told me that when there was no support from rome for Boyl's defense of Humanae Vitae,the Cardinal wrote Pope Paul and told him either to support him or find another archbishop of Washington.That propmpted Paul VI to issue a letter strongly praising O'Boyle for his defense of the encyclical. I was at Catholic U in1968 when the great strike took place.The bishops collapsed but they collapsed as every other institution collapsed in 1968.May we never relive those days and the weak timid rule of Paul VI.
Posted by: franklyn mcafee | Apr 28, 2006 3:29:20 PM
I don't have time to finish the whole "Human Life in Our Day" document and I don't like criticising bishops (though sometimes it becomes neccessary of course) but lest anyone like me fear at first that this document doesn't support Humanae Vitae here is a good quote from it:
The encyclical is a positive statement concerning the nature of conjugal love and responsible parenthood, a statement which derives from a global vision of man, an integral view of marriage, and the first principles, at least, of a sound sexuality. It is an obligatory statement, consistent moral convictions rooted in the traditions of Eastern and Western Christian faith; it is an authoritative statement solemnly interpreting imperatives which are divine rather than ecclesiastical in origin. It presents without ambiguity, doubt or hesitation the authentic teaching of the Church concerning the objective evil of that contraception which closes the marital act to the transmission of life, deliberately making it unfruitful. United in collegial solidarity with the Successor of Peter, we proclaim this doctrine.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 28, 2006 3:37:23 PM
The EWTN text of "Human Life in Our Day" by the US Bishops is only chapter 1.
The whole text is available at Priests for Life.
Chapter II gets into International Affairs, Arms Control, Viet Nam and Consciencious Objectors.
The first two "Norms of Licit Theological Dissent" from the US Bishops:
49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.
50. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.
You could say the Church's position was wrong, as long as you acknowledged that the Church has the right to teach the wrong thing. That was the compromise to lift the penalities from the dissenting priests (the 1 out of 3 of the original Washington, DC group that had not already left the priesthood before it got worked out).
Clearly, the American Bishops invited dissent to be "set forth" and "proposed" publicly. After all, it was a new age of open communication, of "Free Speech."
They got it.
Remember also that the mid-1960's were a time when the Catholic Church in the US was literally hemorraging priests and nuns. After the popular myths of "married clergy any day now" and "the Church will change on contraception" turned into great disappoints when the Church did not change, many American nuns and priests just walked out in the late 1960's. Hardline bishops were not helpful with the "personnel crisis" at this time.
Posted by: Old Zhou | Apr 28, 2006 3:44:40 PM
Thanks Old Zhou. You always mangage to put things in perspective. For myself (I was 8 years old in 1968) I'm left to wonder: IF the Pope had booted the buggers out of the Church would George Weigel now be writing an article about the huge mistake the Pope made causing a huge schism in the Church.
Analysis is ok. I hate Monday morning Popes.
Posted by: Martin | Apr 28, 2006 3:47:47 PM
As JR said above, the document "Human Life in Our Day" by the American bishops was clearly supportive of Humanae Vitae. This was a suprise to bishops in many other parts of the world.
This is from the Canadian Bishops' statement of September 27, before the American Bisohps' statement:
17. It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See.
Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.
The global reaction to Humanae Vitae in 1968 was so wide, so overwhelming, and, generally, so negative that it is hard to imagine today. All over the world, the Church was, actually, working with many civil governments in the area of "family planning," and many clergy had to decide to walk out of the church, or walk out of the social programs. It seemed like cognitive dissonance between "obedience to the Pope" and "Gaudium et Spes" inspired engaging the world. And that was the conflict. European bishops came out publicly against it. The question, in 1968, was of Obedience. Nobody, not even the American Bishops in "Human Life in Our Day" said that "Humanae Vitae" was good or correct. They just said that "The Pope said it, we obey. You should obey, too."
Pope Paul VI, after issuing Humane Vitae in 1968, never issued another encyclical, although his papacy lasted until 1978. Many say it was because of the fierce, global, negative response to Humanae Vitae.
It was not until John Paul II's work in "Theology of the Body" that "Humanae Vitae" came to be appreciated. It took John Paul II to unpack some of the theological and anthropological significance of "Humanae Vitae." But by that time, the "Rules of Licit Dissent" were being used everywhere, on everything: "The Church is wrong, but it has a right to teach the wrong thing," and everything is cool.
Posted by: Old Zhou | Apr 28, 2006 4:19:18 PM
One of the big "ifs". When Humanae Vitae was being prepared, Cardinal Wojtyla set up a panel of theologians in Krakow to examine the same issues as the papal commission. (Wojtyla was supposed to have been on the papal commission but had been unable to get a passport). Their memo to the commission provided the Christian personalist context that was reflected in Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility and would later find its way into the Theology of the Body. Some elements of this memo were included in the final draft but Humanae Vitae largely focussed on the sexual acts and missed out on the context.
It may well have been that even if Humanae Vitae included this framework for understanding the Church's position on conjugal morality the charges of legalism would still have been made. Without it, unfortunately, the charges were very difficult to counter.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 28, 2006 5:18:13 PM
I have to point out that the norms of licit dissent apply only "when conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching".
There can be no licit dissent from infallible teaching.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 28, 2006 5:25:53 PM
Ah yes, but some claimed that the Church's teaching against birth control was not infallible.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 28, 2006 8:33:24 PM
"Ah yes, but some claimed that the Church's teaching against birth control was not infallible."
It's as infallible, as immutable, as much a teaching or the ordinary and universal magisterium as the Church's teaching that the satet may put heretics to death for no other reason than heresy.
Oh, wait a minute . . . Oops!
Posted by: Eric | Apr 28, 2006 9:36:09 PM
satet = state
Posted by: Eric | Apr 28, 2006 9:37:05 PM
I would recommend "What Went Wrong With Vatican II" by Ralph McInerny.
McInerny echoes much of George Weigel's thesis in the dissent from HV set the stage for the crisis in the Church today.
Posted by: Brian Day | Apr 28, 2006 10:21:53 PM
I was present when the Late Father John A Hardon SJ told us The Most Shocking thing in the Massive Dissent from Humanae Vitae Was that the Bishops of the world took it to be their duty to vote on whether or not they would accept an Papal Encyclical!!
According to Father Hardon (a great student of the papacy) it was the first time in History that Bishops as a group did such a thing to a Pope.
50% of them Dissented from Humanae Vitae. By the way the Polish Conference Voted to affirm the Pope. All this is was one reason Father Hardon would never tire of saying that the Church was going through the worse crisis of it's 2000 year History!! Another reason is in the Western Church 70% of "Catholics" have apparently lost their Faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and also in some other surveys 90%+ are Contracepting!
Some people Believe Pope Paul VI was not opperating from Strength but the Grace of the Office, when he published Humanae Vitae. To be fair Archbishop Fulton J Sheen DD said Pope Paul told him "When I open my mail at Midnight in almost every letter there is a thorn and when I lay my head on my pillow at night I lay it on a crown of thorns"
Pope Paul suffered Heroically!After Humanae Vitae he never published another Encyclical.
Please note my other posting is not as accurate in content and is posted in the wrong place Oops.....
Posted by: John Best | Apr 29, 2006 12:46:35 AM
I second the motion to read "What Went Wrong With Vatican II" by Ralph McInerny.
Also, Philip Trower's "Turmoil and Truth".
Old Zhou, I think you might be right if you think Weigel's article is portraying "the truce" as a globally significant turning point. However, I think Weigel's point is focusing on the effect it had on the Bishops, particularly in the U.S.
The consequences of getting cut off at the knees sent a message, and contributed to the spirit of "discontinuity and rupture." He isn't the first to make this case, and I don't doubt that it is true.
How much it contributed to the current chaos? Dunno.
Posted by: michael hugo | Apr 29, 2006 2:17:53 AM
Eric,
Please tell me where I can find:
"Church's teaching that the state may put heretics to death for no other reason than heresy."
Posted by: michael hugo | Apr 29, 2006 2:22:18 AM
What is fascinating to me is that if you can't accept the authority of this teaching by submission and faith, you should be able to at least accept this teaching based on PPVI's prediction of what would happen in the world if people did not live according to Humanae Vitae. Sort of a backdoor route, I know, but gee, does anybody really think we are better off, as a people and a church, with all of the contracepting going on? Does anybody really believe the old "every child a wanted child" garbage?
Posted by: momof6 | Apr 29, 2006 7:17:12 AM
Since I was alive in 1948 and three years out of high school in '68, I have some idea of the atmosphere back then.
I can't cite a document that says it, but the laity I knew believed that the Church condemned all forms of birth control including the rhythm method, which was largely ineffective in any case.
At the same time women were moving into the workforce where pregnancy was a definite handicap. Employers interviewing women for a job asked point-blank "Do you plan to have (or have any more) children?" If the answer was "yes", the woman didn't get the job. Women who did not work outside the home were beginning to be classed as somewhat lazy and those who worked were seen as an asset to their husbands and family--the good wife.
Prior to the issuance of the encyclical there was a general sense among Catholic women that the need to be an asset to their family by going to work could be facilitated by using the pill. Since many couples were already practicing rhythm in a frequently failing attempt to prevent pregnancy, despite the belief that the Church disapproved, the pill was seen as just a better way to do what they were already doing. Nothing was known about the abortifacient effects of the pill.
Impacting the laity's perception of church doctrine was also the Fatima Secret that was to have been released in the early 60s, but which was not released. The laity discovered that even heaven could be ignored without consequence. Compared to the Blessed Virgin, what was so important about ignoring a pope?
David Yallop, in the book IN GOD'S NAME, indicates that Pope John Paul I saw HV as a mistake that he had full intention of rectifying quickly, but died (or was murdered) before he could accomplish it. Yallop also indicates that Pope Paul VI's commission on birth control recommended that the Pope accept the pill.
The doctrine on infallibility was fresh in the minds of Catholics in 1968 because it had been used to proclaim a Marian feast in the 50's. Now came Paul VI with HV and his decision specifically NOT to declare it infallible. That sent a message. No Catholic took HV seriously. It was viewed as a joke. There was even a poster sold with a picture of Paul VI pointing his finger (the Uncle Sam gesture), and the words "The Pill is a No-No" at the bottom of the poster, that some Catholics hung on their walls to laugh at.
Since then NFP has been developed, providing couples a way to regulate births without the pill. That was not available to Catholics in 1968. Not using the pill meant having no reliable control over pregnancy. How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?
This is the first time I've heard about the Truce of 1968. If it had a large impact on priests and bishops, it had little impact on the laity back then.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 29, 2006 8:43:16 AM
"...the laity I knew believed that the Church condemned all forms of birth control, including the rhythm method..." Then the laity you knew were ignorant.
The "Fatima Secret" was not and is not Church Doctrine, and it was not supposed to be revealed in the 1960s. The pope was to read it in 1960, but it was up to the reigning pope to decide when and whether it was to be revealed to the world.
"David Yallop, in the book IN GOD'S NAME (sic),indicates that Pope John Paul I saw HV as a mistake that he had full intention of rectifying quickly, but died (or was murdered) before he could accomplish it." Did a duplicate key to the ward room ice-box also exist?
"Now came Paul VI with HV and his decision NOT specifically to declare it infallible....No Catholic took HV seriously." Actually, many of us did (and do).
"How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?" All of us who accept God's Way of doing things and recognize children as His gift.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 29, 2006 9:34:18 AM
Bill, the teaching back then was that a woman was not to refuse her husband. Rhythm was seen as the woman refusing her husband and thus condemned. That may not have been the universal belief of the Church, I really don't know, but it was what was believed where I lived.
Fatima is not Church doctrine, true. That understanding of Marian apparitions has become general knowledge since 1968. Back in the 50's even the nuns talked to us school children about the secret of Fatima that was to be revealed soon. We were not subjected to a plethora of false apparitions at that time, and Fatima had Church approval, and so was considered to be a message from God. It was generally believed to be the Blessed Virgin who had appeared, and the Pope was seen as refusing her request, at least where I came from. Obviously Catholicism had more regional beliefs before the internet.
Re David Yallop's book, I don't understand either your (sic) or your comment about the key, though it's been a couple of years since I read the book.
All of us who accept God's Way of doing things and recognize children as His gift.
NFP is considered to be in conformity with God's way of doing things. Most Catholics I've come to know via the web use NFP in conformity with the teachings of the Church. I have met one Catholic on a message board who does not use it and accepts whatever pregnancies come, but she is rare.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 29, 2006 10:05:54 AM
Hey Bill, instead of snarking sarcasm, how about answering her question?
"How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?"
Few. Very few. More today than yesterday, but still precious few. To be sure, how many Catholics are/have been willing to "give up sex altogether" before marriage?? How many faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith, were virgins when they got married, or are still virgins if single? Next to none, that is the answer.
Now, how many would have embraced chastity and rejected contraception if society did not go through the "sexual revolution" of the 60s-70s? How many would have remained true and faithful if a significant number of those we look to for leadership had enthusiastically taken the time to teach and promote the truth of Humanae Vitae, and not merely defend it? Many, many, many more.
Sadly, although Pope Paul VI may have been infallible in teaching, he and the bishops were quite fallible in the presentation of that teaching. They made grevious errors in tactics and strategy in battling hedonistic modernity. If it was erroneous of Carrie to say that "no Catholic" took Humanae Vitae seriously, it is equally erroneous to claim that "many" did. No, many did not. Some did, a few did, but not "many."
Posted by: Bender | Apr 29, 2006 10:22:30 AM
Maybe even more to the point, Bender, if our leaders had taken Humane Vitae seriously, what would our society look like today, and would it be more accommodating to children? I'd be willing to bet it would look a lot different than it does. I'd be willing to bet that the pressure on women to have a job would be significantly less. I'd be willing to bet that a "living wage" would be a wage that made raising a family possible. I'd bet there would still be affordable vehicles that would accommodate more than two parents and two children. I'd bet the divorce rate would be much much lower. There would be enough members in the upcoming generation to support the retirement of the older generation.
We'd probably not be nearly as focused on the latest novelties. There would probably be less market for electronic gimmicks, and less interest in "styles". And since America leads the world, it might also be possible that the entire world would look a lot different than it does. Culturally, children would have a place of welcome that today they do not have. Some of the trade-offs would be negative, like not everyone being able to go to college, but the bulk would probably be positive.
We are supposed to be salt and light. We've been neither one. But alas, now we are stuck with the culture we've created, and fixing it is going to take a long time.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 29, 2006 10:56:55 AM
While everybody on this thread discusses birth control, they (including Weigel, who should know better) ignore a fundamental fact: The Church's episcopocracy has always been a closed system riddled with arrogance and corruption, constantly ignoring calls for accountability and transparency. If you could go back in time and ask Erasmus, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena and St. John Chrysodom, they'd tell you the same thing -- and they didn't have to worry about papal teachings concerning birth control.
Why won't the Church discipline malfeasant priests and bishops? It has far less to do with Humanae Vitae than it does with the fact that the Church values a superficial conformity that maintains the illusion of unity and consistency. It's afraid of making its mistakes public because doing so undermines its sweeping claims to temporal influence. After all, if the Church can't get it's own teachings straight, what good are its pronouncements on distinctly secular affairs?
This "company man" mentality is *the* reason why JPII was so malfeasant in disciplining such people as Law, Mahony, Weakland, etc. He appointed men to be loyal primarily to his geopolitical and theological agenda, and he was not going to undercut their position (and, thereby, undercut his own) regardless of how misfeasant they were.
But if Weigel is right about the role of Humane Vitae, then perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus.
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Apr 29, 2006 11:47:39 AM
"...perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus."
Except time has proven that it wasn't.
Posted by: Tim J. | Apr 29, 2006 12:06:15 PM
What more could the modernists wanted after Vatican II? It is clear in scripture what the intent of marriage is-to produce offspring and populate heaven. But I have to chuckle and have no idea what Paul VI really stood for and where he belongs in church history as he pushed forth the destruction and loss of millions of clergy who left the Catholic priesthood in the 70's and 80's by the introduction of the new Protestant Liturgy that has only gotten worse today as well as the New Sacraments and translation of the bible and then of course the new Code of Canon law under JPII that needed to coincide with Modernism and Vatican II and opened the door for 60,000 annulments a year in the US alone, what a horrible state the church is in with respect the Catholic marriage, and of course the handing over of our Lord to non-catholics (Eucharistic Hospitality anyone??)just another re-enactment of not the last supper-But Our lord being handed over by the Pharisies for his crucifixion
Pray for a return to true Traditionalism and faith, morals, and prayer. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
God bless
Posted by: John | Apr 29, 2006 12:31:59 PM
"...perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus."
Except time has proven that it wasn't.
Then, Tim, why didn't the Vatican demand that those priests who protested publicly retract their dissent publicly? The only other explanation is the one to which I dedicated most of my first post.
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito | Apr 29, 2006 12:47:14 PM
Joseph, there is one other possible explanation. The destruction we are enduring may have been orchestrated. Paul VI himself said the smoke of satan had entered. Whatever the consecration of Russia was intended to counter was not countered in the 60s as heaven planned.
Today we seem to have two factions in the Church. For example, one of them issued the document on the New Age while the other sponsored a New Age conference on the very grounds of the papal summer residence, as I've been blogging. Talk about a de facto schism!
Posted by: carrie | Apr 29, 2006 12:57:30 PM
"Bill, the teaching back then was that a woman could not refuse her husband." It still is. It is also a teaching of the Church that a husband may not refuse his wife. ""The husband should give to his wife the conjugal relations, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, the wife does." 1 Cor. 7:3-4.
"...the pope was seen as refusing (Mary's) request, atleast where I came from." Just because some people see something a certain way doesn't make it so.
"NFP is considered to be in conformity with God's way of doing things. "Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." 1 Cor 7:5. Could a woman's fertile period be the season to which St. Paul refers?
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 29, 2006 1:00:50 PM
"How many faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith, were virgins when they got married or are still virgins if single? Next to none, that is the answer." A psychologist might call this "Projection". Well, I'm 52, single, and, by the Grace of God, still a virgin. There's nothing special about me. If I can do it, anybody can.
Bender, I wholeheartedly agree with your paragraph about the sexual revolution and the failure of many of the Church's leaders to teach and promote HV.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 29, 2006 1:10:41 PM
Just because some people see something a certain way doesn't make it so.
I'm not saying it does. But remember, what this thread is about--the reason we are in the midst of a scandal. That reason does not rest on truth. It rests on perception by those who made choices back in 1968 and since. The way that people saw the Pope's actions is pertinent to the way they themselves acted in 1968. A Pope who ignored heaven's orders also impacted the way the laity would respond to his own.
"Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." 1 Cor 7:5.
When citing this passage it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the Holy Family is held up to us as the ultimate model of married life, but they defied this perscription in Corinthians. There was only one child, and the wife remained a virgin until she died. They did not come together, let alone "come together again." Teaching on the congujal act is a bit schizophrenic at best. St. Joseph had grounds for annulment. The marriage was never consummated.
Posted by: carrie | Apr 29, 2006 1:35:32 PM
Apples: The Church's teaching on marraige.
Oranges: "St. Joseph had grounds for annulment."
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 29, 2006 1:42:23 PM
Yo,
What is this "nature provides" nonesense?
Is this a Catholic blog, or not?
Posted by: michael hugo | Apr 29, 2006 2:00:54 PM
Michael Hugo,
If you want a response it would be a good idea to cite exactly where you read "nature provides" and give the context. I think few people want to read through everything looking for that comment.
Posted by: J. R. Stoodley | Apr 29, 2006 2:09:16 PM
From Catholic Answers:
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Posted by: michael hugo | Apr 29, 2006 2:09:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
