But why not...?

The question that arises from my last post, is But why not continue to teach the indissolubility of marriage, whilst operating a merciful pastoral practice when people fail to live up to that ideal?

In the first place, the question as posed risks misleading people. Chastity is not an ideal, in the sense of some unattainable aspiration. By the grace of God, it is a real possibility, and its attainment is a proper goal of Christian living.

But leaving that aside, there are more important issues at stake.

One is the integrity of the Church. Were she to proclaim one thing formally, but endorse its contradiction in practice, that integrity would be compromised: and we do not have the right to compromise Christ's mystical body.

A second, and related, issue is the corruption of the Church's mission. The Apostles were sent out by Christ to teach all things He had taught, and baptise all peoples, to incorporate them into Him.

But it is a self-evident truth that teaching is about more than proclaiming doctrine. What we do often teaches more clearly and convincingly than what we say: hence the well-known dictum often attributed to our Holy Father's namesake, St Francis of Assisi. Preach the Gospel at all times; use words when necessary.

The result of the Church adopting a pastoral strategy in contradiction with her doctrine would be initially confusion, and eventually a widespread belief that the Church doesn't really mean it, with regard to the doctrine.

One only has to reflect on the lack of teaching on Humanae Vitae, in particular the lack of a call to repentance and confession of those who breach its teachings, and the resultant conviction of much of the world, and indeed many Catholics, that it is an optional teaching.

Likewise, one can see how changes in devotional practice, combined with a lack of proper catechesis, have affected belief about something as central as the Real Presence.

Indeed, it seems likely to me that some of those promoting ++Kasper's 'pastoral solution' are hoping for precisely that outcome: that the Church's teaching will be silenced, and eventually treated as optional, and beyond that as outdated. And that risk is real. For while the Church, formally, is indefectible, there is no guarantee that the majority of the bishops, or the majority of the Faithful, will not fall into error - witness the Arian crisis.

So it is a matter of great importance that the integrity of the Church's teaching, which she has Christ's mandate to proclaim to all nations for all ages, is maintained both in her formal teaching and in her pastoral practice. 

Further Musings

I have been thinking more about the Bishops' Conference's reluctance to back +Egan (see my previous post, here).

I have a hunch. It is no more than that, but it is my current working hypothesis about what is going on.

The Bishops do not wish to be clear that those who are out of step with Catholic teaching on SSM should not present for communion for a reason.

That reason, I suspect, is that it might raise a question they really don't want to face. That is: should those who don't follow the Church's teaching on artificial contraception also refrain from receiving?

That, I suspect, is the Elephant in the Conference.

It seems to me that there are some in the Conference who are uncomfortable with Humanae Vitae; and there are more who fear the consequences of preaching on it. Due to their, and their predecessors', failure to teach this, and also to instil any sense of obedience and teachability in the Faithful, they know that huge numbers will rebel against any such teaching.

So it is much easier and safer to keep everything nice and ill-defined, and not rock the boat.

Who was it who said that the first act of episcopal collegiality was the one recorded in St Matthew's Gospel, 26:56?

I may be quite wrong: indeed I hope I am: someone please give me a more plausible explanation...

Not This Man!

The Tablet, that august organ, reports Bishop Burns talking about the recent questionnaire on marriage and family life thus:

the Questionnaire on Marriage and Family Life was constructed in such an obfuscating manner that it could have been a deliberate ruse to deter responses and halt the roaring train. [Respondents] have a right to know the strength of uniformity in what they said. The views belong to the people who made them. It’s called transparency. Let’s be among the first to re-build the Church – with good marriages, good families – and good re-marriages too!

There is much here that I find worrisome: in particular the comment about re-marriages. From the context, it seems abundantly clear that the bishop is not talking about widows and widowers re-marrying. 

Therefore he can only mean that people who are already validly married, and entering a second (or subsequent) union are capable of contracting, not only valid, but 'good' marriages.  Maybe it was poorly worded (or misquoted); I certainly hope so, for otherwise, the Bishop, in this statement, has stepped outside orthodoxy, which is a very serious problem indeed.

However, I want to pick up on something else. He seems to be calling for the views of respondents to be made public, and seems to be doing so because he feels that their 'strength and uniformity' lend them some validity.

I would agree that the views could usefully be made public, but not in the name of 'transparency' (a rather vogue and often weasel word) but because of the Church's commitment to truth.  Truth does not necessarily require such transparency: but what it does require is for widespread error to be corrected.  Acknowledging the scale of the problem might be a good first step in that process.

But, as I say, Bishop Burns, it would seem, does not approach it from that point of view at all. Instead, he seems to subscribe, as far as one can tell, to a rather naive version of Vox populi vox Dei.

Interlude: meditate on the third of the Luminous Mysteries.

To resume. There were once two men, One proclaimed a Gospel of Love; but not the simplistic love that says 'don't upset people' - rather the love that says Sin no more!  Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery, and other rather unpopular things.

The other was a murderer.

But when asked whether the first should be spared execution, the people, (with strength and uniformity, no doubt), cried out: Not this Man, but Barrabas!

Vox populi is really not a sure guide to truth or virtue.  Of course, if people practice contraception, and have divorced their spouses, they will ask for these to be declared good (particularly if they have some residual sense of guilt).  'Whom will you follow: Jesus of Nazareth, who teaches that you must repent your sins?'

'Not this Man!'

But it is really not the job of a Catholic Bishop to oblige.

Another Note From my Father

I posted about finding my Father's notebook the other day.

Here is another note which I think may be of wider interest.  This one is entitled Note on the English Bishops' Statement on the Mass, and is dated May 1975

1) Confronted with people who say that the Novus Ordo is not obligatory, and who carefully examine the legislation, the bishops say: 'It is the Law of the Church and must be obeyed!' It is inconceivable that, if there were any such law, the bishops would not refer to it explicitly.

2) Serious theological criticisms have been made of the Novus Ordo, not least by Cardinals Ottoviani and Bacci. It is not a question of accusing the Holy Father of fostering heresy. It is not good enough to 'deplore the calumnies.' Explanation and justification is required.

3) It ill behoves these miserable time-servers who did their best to dodge 'Humane Vitae' to talk about loyalty to the Pope.

The whole statement displays the tyrannous and arbitrary methods of government now inflicted upon the Faithful.

--

I cannot find a copy of the English Bishops' statement to which he refers (but see update below): if anyone knows where it may be found, I would be very interested.

--

UPDATE

Thanks to my readers' (Matthew and Bookclubber) skills in research, here is the relevant part of the bishops' statement which my father criticises above (the first part condemned ad  lib changes to the Mass - the full text may be found by following their links):

At the other extreme are those who reject all the liturgical reforms. In both cases it is a question of loyalty and obedience to the Holy See. Catholics are wrongly said to be under no obligation to accept the reformed liturgy. It is alleged that the rite of the Mass as reformed by Pope Pius v may still be lawfully offered in place of the rite approved by Pope Paul vi. The bishops by this statement wish to make it clear that the Missal of Pope Paul vi has now replaced all other missals in the Roman rite. This is a law of the Church and must be obeyed. Exceptions to the law have only been authorised for old or sick priests who may celebrate the old rite privately. An indult was granted to the bishops of England and Wales to give permission to particular groups on special occasions to use the old rite as reformed in 1967. This, permission was given on the strict condition that all danger of division would be avoided. For devotional reasons a group may be given leave to have a Mass in this rite. At all parish and community Masses, however, the rite is obligatory, whether it is in Latin or English.

"Some have been misled by propaganda which attacked Pope Paul's Missal and even accused the Holy Father of fostering heresy in the new eucharistic prayers. The bishops deplore such calumnies and call for obedience to the Holy See. In company with the bishops of the whole Church the episcopal conference of England and Wales declares its loyalty to the successor of St Peter and trusts that this statement will make it clear to priests and people that Holy Mass must be celebrated according to the rite of the Roman Missal of Pope Paul vi.

As a matter of historical fact, it can be asserted that my father was right, and the bishops wrong, on this issue, as our recent Holy Father (now emeritus) Benedict made it clear that the traditional Rite had not been abrogated, and further that it would be wrong to declare illicit what had previously been held sacred by the Church.

A mirror image

I was fascinated to read this post by  the Dean of Durham Cathedral.

In many ways, it is almost the mirror image of my post here.  It argues that the Church (of England) has managed to accommodate itself to contraception, divorce and remarriage, and the legalisation of homosexual acts; so it is intemperate to get too concerned about Same Sex 'Marriage.'  (And he could have added abortion to the list, of course.)

In its own way, the logic is pretty sound.  However, I argue precisely the other way: it was in accommodating to all these other attacks on the integrity of marriage that we have enabled this latest assault on it.

And the Dean seems to have a couple of massive blind-spots, one spiritual and one historical.

Does he not reflect on the fact that there might be issues of truth, relating to the Divine Will as revealed through Scripture and tradition, that should be considered here?

And does he not suspect that the decline in the COE might have something to do with its constant accommodation to the sliding standards of the World (not to mention the flesh and the Devil)?

Dying Gasps

Deacon Nick Donnelly,  at his Protect the Pope site,  has revealed that the sad old folk of Call to Action have convened meetings in various English dioceses. (I've linked to Call to Action in the US - CTA-USA I tried CTA-UK but that turns out to be the rather more interesting  Cinema Theatre Association).

They maintain ‘there seems a reluctance to listen to the people whose lived reality is so often at odds with the teaching of the institutional Church.’

I think they are nearly right.  What I see is a reluctance to listen by the people whose lived reality is so often at odds with the teaching of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I think these poor deluded souls are quite panicked as their sell-by date has come and gone, and they remain rotting, unwanted, on the back of the shelf...

The days when anybody seriously thought that they could re-create the Church to reflect their own self-centred view of what the Church should be are long past.

With hindsight, one can see that this idea was dying even when it seemed to flourish.  Humanae Vitae and the Credo of the People of God were early signs; Veritatis Splendor was very clear writing on the wall, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was the death-knell for such thinking, and practically everything said or done by Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning, has confirmed that reality.

True, there has been a lot of noise in the system; and true, that has resulted in the tragedy of many being deceived and losing their Faith.

But Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus ecclesiam (the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church), and it was to Peter that Christ said tibi dabo claves regni caelorum (I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.)

So whilst we should, rightly, be indignant at the noises emanating from these sad Call to Action chaps, and at those who collude when they should know better, we should recognise such noises for what they are: the dying gasps of an ill-conceived and ill-fated movement that, in the fullness of time will barely be a footnote in the history of the Church.

--

Footnote:

Why the Latin?

1 It annoys the Latin-haters (inc Satan)

2 It adds an appearance of class to an otherwise pedestrian blog

3 It rewards those who persevered through the Liturgical Latin blogs

4 It is the language of the Roman Church

An old error...

Time and again, we hear how 'most Catholics reject the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, because the large majority of Catholic married couples use contraception.' (It turned up in an exceptionally stupid* piece in the National Catholic Reporter just now...)

This is stated as though it is a self-evident truth.  However, it is not.

There are two reasons for that.

The first is that in order to say that 'most Catholics reject the Church's teaching on artificial birth control' one would need to establish that they knew and understood the Church's teaching.  Whilst most know the headlines, (though even that knowledge has been muddied by the many false teachers who distort the idea of the primacy of conscience), it is highly doubtful that most know the reasons for the teaching and the depth of theology that underpins them.

There has been both a catastrophic failure of positive teaching, and a diabolical promulgation of deceit on this topic.

The second reason is a simple logical fallacy.  As the statement is presented, I could as well say:  'most Catholics reject the Church's teaching on loving your neighbour, because the large majority of Catholics are sometimes selfish.'

Clearly that is a nonsense.  Sometimes we fail to live up to a standard not because it is something with which we disagree, but because it is difficult!

In the case of the teaching on artificial birth control, these two factors interact in complex ways.  So while it may be true that many Catholics disobey the Church, and many have been persuaded that such disobedience is allowable, and further, many have been persuaded that the Church's teaching is wrong, I suspect that there are very few indeed who could articulate the Church's teaching and then explain why they reject it.

Of those few, one is probably a well-known woman theologian; but her rejection I suspect would lack intellectual coherence, as she recently suggested the Church should pay heed to the views of 'sexually active' Catholics. Does she imagine that those who live by Humanae Vitae, and have the large families to prove it, have had their children without being sexually active?  Think again, Tina.

--

* Exceptionally stupid: for example it claims that 97% of Catholic Laity use artificial birth control.  Given the number of the laity who are too young or too old for this to be an issue, plus those who are celibate or who observe Humanae Vitae, that is clearly an exceptionally stupid claim. The rest of the article meets the same standard of competence.

Restore the EF to fight abortion?...

So what’s the link between the restoration of the Extraordinary Form to the altars of the Church, and the fight agains evils such as  abortion, eugenic murder, euthanasia etc.

That’s the gauntlet thrown down by Stuart of eChurchblog, and as is my wont, I am rushing in where angels (or those on their side) hesitate to tread.

There are a few ways into this, and I think I’ll take all of them, so bear with me.

Firstly, I think there is a connection between right belief, right prayer and right action.  There is an old saying, lex orandi, lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief.  That is, as our prayer is, so our belief will be.  I would add to that, that as Christians our actions should derive from our prayer and our belief, if it is to be right action.  I mention that as occasionally people (say American nuns' leaders, for example) are silly enough to say we shouldn't worry about issues like liturgy when there are so many social ills to fight.


But the commandment to love our neighbour is the second great commandment: the first is to love the Lord our God: and to do that as He wants requires right prayer.

I would add to that initial starting point, a consideration of the phrase ‘cafeteria Catholicism.’  I don’t really want to get into what that might or might not be, but rather use it as an excuse to move up-market a bit and talk of A la Carte Catholicism and Table d’Hôte Catholicism.

For I believe that one can reasonably, and without being too offensive, compare the Ordinary Form of the Mass with an A la Carte approach, where the priest, liturgy committee and so on can select from a range of options those which will in their view produce the best liturgy for a particular group on a particular day.

On the other hand, the EF is the Table d’Hôte: you receive what you are given, and are grateful and learn to love it.  Isn’t Host a happy word in that context? One thinks of the Eucharistic Host, of course, and of the Hosts of Heaven, and our Heavenly Host, the Lamb himself.

And the good things the Host offers us at His table are not necessarily those which we would choose, but those which He knows, in His infinite love, are going to be best for us. Remember this is a restaurant and the word restaurant is very rich in this context: restaurer in French means both to take refreshment and to restore.

And then the wine: the cup of charity which we are offered to drink, which both warms and consoles, but also may contain our death: Can you drink of the cup?... Not that it is a poisoned chalice, but because Greater love has no man...

(I have previously pushed this metaphor even further, possibly further than it can sustain, here)

My point here is that if we are formed in this way, we are more likely to accept and act on the Church’s teachings and instructions with regard to social and even sexual matters.

Likewise, if we treat our Liturgy in an A la Carte fashion, there is at least the risk that we will treat the teachings of the Church in the same way, and also our obligation to act on them.

That is not merely a theoretical assumption.  When one looks at the congregations in the EF, (and also in those parishes, such as the Oratory parishes, where the approach to the OF is much closer to a Table d’Hôte approach) one often finds, pro rata, more children, more large families, and more pro-life activists.  Or to put it the other way around, people who dissent from the Church are likely to feel more comfortable in an A la Carte liturgy (particularly if they shop around for one which suits their particular tastes) than confronted by the immutable EF.

I think, further, that the vertical attitudes particularly cultivated by the EF make one more aware of one’s duties to God and neighbour, even those duties one might not feel drawn towards, and to define those duties in terms of what God, via His Church, is telling one to do; whereas the more horizontal orientation of the OF may incline one to favour those duties which are more obviously ‘social’ and to define those duties in terms of what one perceives, oneself, to be the ‘loving’ thing to do in any situation.

The old style favours an objective approach to the formation of conscience; the new a more subjective commitment to following one’s conscience.

The trouble with that is that our perception of the most ‘loving’ thing, and the development of our conscience can be affected by original sin, and by the world, the flesh and the devil.  Thus we find Catholics who, despite the clear teaching of the Church, don’t think that abortion, euthanasia and eugenic murder are wrong.

Related to all of this is the issue of a distinct Catholic identity.  It seems to me that that has been significantly eroded by making our liturgy much more similar to that of some other Christians, by losing Latin as our language of worship, by losing many of our Holy Days of Obligation (and until recently by losing Friday abstention).  We have lost what it feels like to be counter-cultural, and have become comfortable in our current culture - which makes it much harder to fight such cultural trends as accepting abortion etc as a 'necessary evil' or even as 'essential for equality.'

Finally, the restoration of the EF would force people to confront the fact that they are under authority.  The final authority is, of course, God Himself.  But the Church, particularly in the person of the Holy Father, is His vicar. That reminder, that we do not choose our own path, but must take up the Cross whether we like it or not, is more likely, it seems to me, to galvanise concerted action against great but slightly distant moral evils, than the OF approach.

This feels like a rather rambling attempt at an answer: I will be interested in any questions, counter-arguments, or indeed demonstration that I am wrong or flawed in my reasoning.

What is marriage?

A very interesting article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by three academics (one philosopher, one politician and one political scientist).

The essence of their argument is that if we look at what marriage actually is, and therefore why the state has any interest in it, we recognise that it is essentially the monogamous union of a husband and a wife - nothing else qualifies. They then address certain reservations others may raise to this argument. Well worth a read.

Interestingly their argument for a defining feature of marriage being a 'comprehensive union' seems to me to outlaw contraception...

Hat tip to The Hermeneutic of Continuity.

Contraceptives

I recently received this email from a reader:

I can see your stance on abortion but most contraceptives do not end lives. The birth control bill can cause an early abortion so I am against that but what is wrong with others. Most catholics support Natural Family Planning and the rhythm method so what is the difference if a couple decides to use something like spermicide or a condom? I am a protestant by the way. I believe premarital sex is a sin but contraceptives are not necessarily the reason for the rise of unwed pregnancy and stds. It's because are so careless. If you are going to have premarital sex all you have to do is to get your partner tested for stds and don't have sex with anybody else. As far as pregnancy is concern don't have sex during ovulation and use a condom as back up. It's just laziness.

Also abstinence is the ideal and is what God wants but is it realistic to think everybody will abstain. Even before sex ed premarital sex was more of a problem than people wanted to admit. If a woman got pregnant she often walked down the aisle pregnant. This happened to my grandmother. If a girl could not get married she was sent away to a home for unwed mothers to give up her baby. These women were unfairly labeled sluts even though most of these girls were not anymore promiscuous than women who experienced shotgun weddings. Boys were not condemned at all.

References
The Girls Who Went Away- Google Books
http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/karenwb.html
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/adoption_damage_to_children.html
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/mothers.html

My point is to ask you which is worse Some girl using birth control or Girls secretly sent away to some maternity home, coerced by society into giving the bay, and then suffering emotional damage for decades while the father moves on with his life?

It was signed, but as it was not put in the combox, I won't give the name...

--

To this, I wrote the following reply:

Dear (...)

Thanks for your email.

I think with regard to pre-marital sex, you are quite right: abstinence is the ideal and is what God wants. To ask if it is realistic seems to me to miss the point. We could equally well say that people are going to assault each other - it is not realistic to expect that nobody will. But that doesn’t make it right or acceptable, and certainly doesn’t mean that we should make it easier for them to do so (which is what contraceptives do with regard to pre-marital sex).

And that is my whole point: our job is to discover God’s will, and then carry it out. It is clear that his will for human sexuality is that it is for reproduction and for the expression of mutual love and self-giving within marriage.

It is interesting to note that until less than 100 years ago, all Christian denominations were united on this issue. It was only in 1930 that the Lambeth Conference of Anglicans decided that contraceptives might be permissible within marriage - and look where that has led.

One of the other problems with contraceptives is that when they fail, (and they do - ask anyone involved in pregnancy counselling!) then abortion is the back-up - so contraceptives and abortion are closely linked in fact, if not in theory.

You raise another couple of interesting questions. One is:

Most catholics support Natural Family Planning and the rhythm method so what is the difference if a couple decides to use something like spermicide or a condom?

There are in fact many differences:

In NFP, the couple are enjoying a God-given facet of biology; they are not doing anything, except abstaining from sex for certain periods of time;

In NFP, the attitude is different: it is fundamentally one of obedience (NFP is not easy!) which means if a child is conceived, the parents will not abort it; in artificial contraception, the fundamental attitude is 'My will be done...'

In NFP, the effect is to encourage the couple to restraint and mutual respect; whereas artificial contraception tends in the opposite direction;

In artificial contraception, a barrier is placed between the couple, either physical or chemical, at the very moment that they are united: they are giving themselves to each other - yet with-holding a fundamental part of themselves, the capacity to give life.

Couples who use NFP have a remarkably low divorce rate, compared to the rest of the population (including compared to Catholics who use artificial contraception). By their fruits...

The other interesting question was this:

Which is worse: Some girl using birth control or Girls secretly sent away to some maternity home, coerced by society into giving the baby, and then suffering emotional damage for decades while the father moves on with his life?

Both of these are bad: therefore we should choose neither. But girls (or others) using artificial birth control fuel the problem, they don’t solve it.

When contraceptives were being promoted, we were promised 'no more unwanted pregnancies; more stable marriages; happier people.' But they have failed to deliver on those promises, and as far as I can see work drectly against them - and that is because they work directly against the will of God.

But I realise that it is most unlikely that I will convince you. Instead I would urge you to pray and study the Bible and the historic teaching of all Christianity.

Best wishes

Ben Trovato

--

To this, I received the civil reply: Thanks

Obsessed with Sex (2)

When people accuse the Church of being obsessed with sex, I think what they really mean is that the Church confronts a world that is obsessed with sex. The Church's insistence on teaching the Gospel truth about human love is so counter-cultural that the sex-obsessed world thinks this is all that the Church has to say.

Of course it is not, but it is an important front in the battle. Why is that?

Principally because it is one of Satan's chosen battle-fronts. From the dawn of time he has hated Love; and in particular he has hated the dignity bestowed on human beings in being able to express love in a way that is co-creative - co-operating with God in bringing new life - including a new eternal soul - into the world. That is something the Angels cannot do.

And from the earliest time he has attacked this: there can be no doubt that one of the effects of the Fall of Man is disorder in our sexual nature - and that is why the Church's witness in this area is always so unpopular, and always so important. For it is the truth that sets us free, and those who live by the Church's teaching - the teaching of Our Lord Himself - can attest to the fact that it is truly liberating and love-promoting.

Human Love and the Devil part two

The fundamental problem with human sexuality is that we are all damaged. This is the great truth that springs from a correct understanding of Original Sin, and it is largely untaught.

The reasons for it not being taught are many. I suspect some are:

1 that it entails belief in the Devil, which is not very fashionable;

2 that people think it engenders fear and guilt, which are not very fashionable.

However, with regard to 1, it is clear that Our Lord believed in the Devil - and indeed met him. With regard to 2, fear and guilt are appropriate responses to, respectively, the prospect of eternal damnation, and sin. They may not be the best or highest motivators to the devout life, and inappropriate fear or guilt can be very destructive, but to negate them all together is folly.

Moreover, Original Sin makes sense: we need to understand that at the start of the human race, our first parents ceded power in the world to a malevolent and powerful fallen angel (‘the Lord of this World’) and also did damage to themselves and their offspring. Then we can make sense both of natural disasters and of human frailty.

We are particularly damaged in the area of sexuality precisely because the Devil hates it. He hates love and he hates our ability to co-operate in the creation of new life. So he has focussed his attack there and caused great damage. Hence abortion, contraception, infidelity, homosexuality, paedophilia, pornography, promiscuity, frigidity,and every other destructive tendency in human sexuality: all spring from this fundamental damage - and we are all vulnerable to one or more of them...