Lindsay ([info]angelicid) wrote in [info]catholicism,
@ 2005-07-24 15:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Some priests aren't afraid...
I'm a first-time poster, and I have something I'd like to share.

In Mass today, our visiting priest gave a (rather long, but good) homily about Church teachings on birth control. That particular subject related both to tomorrow's anniversary of Humanae Vitae and today's reading in which Solomon asks the Lord for wisdom.

His point was that so-called "cafeteria Catholics" should seek the wisdom to change their minds and hearts about accepting Church birth control teachings. He proposed to us that picking-and-choosing which rules to follow results from a crisis of faith. Such "cafeteria Catholics" are absolutely certain that teachings on, for example, the Trinity or the Eucharist, are non-negotiable. But when the Church proposes that sex is sacred and requires spouses to share their whole selves with each other, they disagree. Intellectually, the Trinity is a lot harder to believe in than the sanctity of sex and its procreative capacities, yet "cafeteria Catholics" seem to accept it more readily.

I found this homily especially interesting (since I'm young and might someday be married, and then have cause to put that teaching into practice) and appropriate. Many priests might be afraid to broach the subject in a homily of Church teachings on sexuality, but I'm glad my parish's priest wasn't.

(cross-posted)

(Post a new comment)

a problem that I have...
[info]zorron
2005-07-24 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Is many preists that I know won't teach the faith. They have issues with the faith themselves. But their are a few good ones who are willing to take the heat.. and teach the faith as it was ment to be taught.

-Zorron

(Reply to this)


[info]chrysologus400
2005-07-24 08:58 pm UTC (link)
That's a good point about how the Trinity is more intellectually difficult than the Church's taching on human sexuality.

(Reply to this)


[info]jessicaem
2005-07-24 09:32 pm UTC (link)
Such "cafeteria Catholics" are absolutely certain that teachings on, for example, the Trinity or the Eucharist, are non-negotiable. But when the Church proposes that sex is sacred and requires spouses to share their whole selves with each other, they disagree.

I'm not sure the issue is that so-called "cafeteria Catholics" (did your priest use that term, or are you using it for the sake of brevity?) disagree that sex is sacred and requires spouses to share their whole selves with each other. I think the issue is that they don't see how using artificial contraception precludes sharing their whole selves with each other, or at least that it precludes that any more than using NFP. In addition, a lot of those married couples who use ABC see no other choice and don't find NFP to be a viable option in spite of the insistence of organizations such as the Couple to Couple League that NFP is just as effective as ABC.

Further, I would argue that accepting doctrines such as the Trinity and the Eucharist is a little easier than accepting the anti-birth-control thing because the Trinity and the Eucharist are very mysterious and also not requiring of any action on a day-to-day basis. In many ways, they are separate from the self while one's birth control choice within marriage is very tactile and practical.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]kwokj
2005-07-24 10:09 pm UTC (link)
my thoughts exactly (in fact, the substance of my response in a cross-positng of this.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]angelicid
2005-07-25 01:05 am UTC (link)
He did say "cafeeria Catholics", which is why I did. I have a horrible memory, but I remember him using that term. That whole paragraph is made up of specifics I remembered (like "crisis of faith").

I understand the Trinity being a different issue in that birth control requires tactile effort. He mentioned that, too: that some teachings are harder to follow because they require one to do something beyond just understanding and/or accepting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]soeursansmerci
2005-07-25 05:56 am UTC (link)
I think the issue is that they don't see how using artificial contraception precludes sharing their whole selves with each other, or at least that it precludes that any more than using NFP.

Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]badsede
2005-07-25 03:43 pm UTC (link)
I think the issue is that they don't see how using artificial contraception precludes sharing their whole selves with each other, or at least that it precludes that any more than using NFP.

Unfortunately, with the type of Catholics that the priest was probably referring to, there is a good chance that they were not really trying to see. My overwhelming experience with Catholics who do not accept some Catholic teaching is that they do not really understand the teaching and have not put much effort into trying. It is not struggling with a Catholic teaching or even lacking assent to it that makes one a "cafeteria Catholic," it is picking and choosing beliefs based not on an informed conscience, but on how one "feels" about about the teaching.

To lack assent on a Catholic teaching is not a sin, the problem is when one actually rejects that teaching or lacks assent and isn't doing anything about it. Unfortunately, many follow the pharisee mindset and lump them all together.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]silvercreedence
2005-07-25 06:33 pm UTC (link)
The difference is that NFP is not taking artificial means to prevent pregnancy and is still open to creating new life.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kwokj
2005-07-26 02:03 am UTC (link)
The difference is that NFP is not taking artificial means to prevent pregnancy, period.

Whether a couple using ABC or NFP is open to new life can only be known to them and God.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]silvercreedence
2005-07-26 02:26 am UTC (link)
The difference is that NFP is not taking artificial means to prevent pregnancy, period

Yes I said that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]oldsgs
2005-07-24 11:40 pm UTC (link)
While I respectfully agree with [info]jessicaem, I tend to believe the difference is a matter of whether the issue is clearly backed by scripture. Some Catholics have trouble putting full faith in the Church when there is no call in the Bible to do so on those particular issues. As to whether it will endanger the souls of these Catholics, I couldn't tell you and I don't believe the Church can say, either.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]silvercreedence
2005-07-25 06:53 pm UTC (link)
Actually there is some scripture that refers to artificial birth control Gen. 38:9-10 "He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name.
And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing" This is Onan who was killed because he was practicing contraception (withdrawal). This Site has a lot of other bible verses that make reference to contraception being wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kwokj
2005-07-26 02:01 am UTC (link)
it has been argued that Onan's sin was in denying children to his brother's widow, as was his duty.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]silvercreedence
2005-07-26 02:28 am UTC (link)
It has been argued but not proven. Besides, the link I provided includes other examples if you want to check them out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]soeursansmerci
2005-07-27 08:19 am UTC (link)
Except that there is also a passage where a wife accused of adultery is made to drink an abortifacient by a priest. If she aborts, she is guilty. If she doesn't, she is innocent. Are we to conclude that this proves that abortion is acceptable in some cases?

Onan's sin was not practicing contraception. It was denying God's commandment to continue his brother's line by marrying and impregnating his brother's widow. Saying that this is about contraception is like saying that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: it's a little-t tradition based on a misinterpretation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]silvercreedence
2005-07-27 02:29 pm UTC (link)
Fine don't believe it, but that is what the church teaches nevertheless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jawnbc
2005-07-26 10:11 am UTC (link)
Well I think many Catholics born post World War II in the West see the Church's stance on AFP as unrealistic. We remember how many families we knew that lived in poverty because of huge--more than 10, sometimes more than 15--children. We remember the number of women who died after too many pregnancies in too short a time period. And we saw that NFP wouldn't work with uncooperative husbands, even good-hearted ones. Not to mention the biologic imperative that increases desire for sexual intimacy for women at the peak of their cycle.

For a lot of us, the explanation of "Gawd's will" rang hollow for the motherless children, the hungry children, the children and parents both frustrated by a like of quality time between them. And as some of our older siblings and cousins (or younger aunts and uncles) moved away from a literalist interpretation of V2 family planning principles, their heads didn't explode, they weren't a-poxed, and they and their families proved to be happy, healthy and spiritual.

Some of my cousins are seriously devout, very involved, send their kids to Catholic schools...and all have, or have, practiced AFP. To them, the sin of bringing children into the world without consideration of their material needs is the greater sin.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]badsede
2005-07-26 04:11 pm UTC (link)
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.to>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i.To them, the sin of bringing children into the world without consideration of their material needs is the greater sin.</i>

Well, at least they understand the other as a sin.

But this points to one of the things that we see that is fundamentally at odds with Christ's message. When Jesus came, he did not relax the Law, he intensified it. He did not lower the standard of righteousness, he raised it. He did not say that upon finding a pearl of great price, the man went and sold everything that was easy or convenient to let go of, but sold everything.

If NFP does not work because of uncooperative husbands or because of increased desire during the peak of a woman's cycle, it is not Church teaching that needs to be changed, it is the hearts of the man and woman that need to change. Jesus' response whenever the Jews said that a teaching was hard was not to change it, but to challenge them to change.

Personally, I take much less issue with someone who is honest about their sin, even while they continue to sin, than someone who tries to redefine what sin actually is.

Ours is by nature an unrealistic religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…