jump to navigation

Weekend reading: homosexual marriage also 100% effective “non-artificial family planning?” July 19, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
Tags: ,
trackback

The following top-notch analysis by Michael Matt of The Remnant was recommended by reader TC. I think it might make stimulating weekend reading. It is a bit long, so I’ll excerpt a bit and add a little commentary, then turn you loose at The Remnant to read the rest:

Gay ‘marriage’ became inevitable when the post-conciliar Church seemed to renege on her infallible teaching to be the sole means of salvation; [Feeneyite!  j/k]  when the human element of the Church established an annulment industry to rival that of secular divorce courts; when even Humanae Vitae itself became too ‘radically traditional’ for post-conciliar Catholics to accept; when natural birth control began to dominate marriage classes in Catholic parishes (thus offering blessings from on high to the radically novel idea of separating the marital act from the end which God Himself had ordained: procreation). The “renewed” Catholic Church left the field in search for justification to join the sexual revolution (au naturel, of course!) and to find ways and means for Catholics to plan parenthood just like everyone else.  Homosexuals didn’t desacralize marriage…we did [Man, I think all these points are just incredibly prescient.  Later on, Matt speaks of Theology of the Body, and is there any more program in the Church today that tries to “sacralize” the culture’s hyper-sexualization than ToB?  I know ToB tries to meet people “on their terms,” but in many presentations on the subject I’ve seen there, it leaves them there where it met them, perhaps with a thin Catholic patina provided by NFP – in maybe 2% of cases. ToB fails to challenge people to throw off the shackles of wanton, unconstrained concupiscence, and too often simply tries to cover that concupiscence with Grace – a distinctly Lutheran attempt (for Luther assumed humans were utterly depraved, and all Grace could do was to cover our depravity like snow on a dung heap.  Is ToB much different, when it leaves the root concupiscence in place, but simply directed a little better (maybe)?  Mind you, I am referring to the popular presentations on ToB, not necessarily JPII’s talks that led to them. That’s a whole ‘nuther topic.]

To this day, Pope Pius XII remains the unlikely hero of extremist proponents of natural birth control because of a 1951 address to the Italian midwives in which he allowed for grave circumstances which might justify rare and limited use of natural means to regulate births over and above periodic abstinence. But the exaggeration of Pius’s position on the part of NFP experts constitutes a gross injustice to the memory of the great pontiff and utterly ignores the Holy Father’s adamant objection to planned parenthood, even of the natural variety. 

Natural justice demands that the abuse of natural birth control so rampant among otherwise faithful Catholics today not be laid at the feet of Pope Pius XII, who in fact said: “You can give irrefutable proofs of the stupidity of birth-control theories and of the harm that comes from putting them into practice; but as long as there is no sincere determination to let the Creator carry on His work as He chooses, then human selfishness will always find new sophistries and excuses to still the voice of conscience and to carry on abuses.”  (The Large Family, Pius XII, 1958) [Boy, ain’t that the truth. We hear doozies along these lines all the time]

I say “faithful Catholics” since only the most faithful in the post-conciliar Church would bother to follow the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception in the first place. But this only exacerbates the problem, since in so many instances good Catholics are being led astray by neo-Catholics who assure them with plenty of “new sophistries” that they need only have the number of children “they want”, and that they’re perfectly free to put off having any at all, if need be.  [So true, I’ve heard Pia de Solenni and Teresa Tomeo say the latter to the point of nausea]

Again, the objective seems to be to separate the pleasure of the act from its divinely-established end: Procreation. And this is revolutionary to the core. 

The fact remains that homosexual acts come with a one hundred percent contraceptive guarantee, which is why so many in the Church of Nancy Pelosi feel compelled by logic and a sense of justice to accept ‘gay marriage’. Once marriage was no longer first and foremost about procreation why not let everyone get married—even homosexuals!  

Within the context of the present worldwide program to destroy Christian marriage, is it not incumbent upon all Catholics to set aside partisan politics and to raise respectful questions as to the prudence of such massive novelties as Theology of the Body, for example—a no doubt well intended experiment in sexuality that was nevertheless unheard of in the history of the Church?  [This is true. Faithful Catholics, and even pious protestants, would have been shocked out of their guords by present-day presentations on ToB.]

Would it not behove us to recall that as far as our grandmothers and grandfathers were concerned, even within marriage the idea was for Christians to wean themselves from the marital act as the years passed, in order to prepare for death and pursue the things of the soul?  [Talk about your revolutionary ideas. As Matt relates in the next paragraph, even nonagenarians are encouraged to get their thang on – with a helpful assist from their friendly, profiteering pharmaceutical company.  Is this right? Is it healthy? Is it natural?  Is this what God intended?]

Finding ways and means of maintaining an active “sex life” even well into middle age and beyond via some sort of natural equivalent to Viagra, would have been utterly abhorrent to our fathers and mothers. What if they had it right, and we have it wrong?  Is it “radically traditionalist” to ask the question? After a mere couple of decades of experimentation is the evidence sufficiently manifest to prove that the world is better off now than it was in the days when Christian men and women didn’t speak of such things in polite society?  

For “radical traditionalists” the answer is obvious.  The defence of the Christian family begins with the restoration of traditional Catholic moral theology, the Latin Mass, the large family, and the abandonment of the experimental sex programs that run rampant in the Church since Vatican II. The world needs Catholic tradition and morality, not Catholic novelty and experimentation. [It should be remembered that ToB is hardly the first novel “sex education” or “sex transformation” program the post-conciliar Church has engaged in.  How many baby boomer Catholics went through “marriage encounter?”  How many subsequently divorced? (loads)  There were encounter groups and sensitivity sessions that promoted ideas very similar to ToB all through the 70s and 80s.  They’ve been quietly, perhaps conveniently forgotten, as the “next big thing” has come along.  The “big program.” The surefire fixit for everything. That’s what we love today. In brief, the easy answer]

———————-End Quote————————-

Go read the rest.  Anyone doubt I will have hostile comments from NFPers and especially ToBers (but I repeat myself) when I come back on Monday?

Comments

1. Cathy - July 20, 2013

Excellent article by Michael J. Matt.

2. Steve - July 20, 2013

“…when the human element of the Church established an annulment industry to rival that of secular divorce courts…”

Read the church bulletins from Richardson/Plano parishes. You will usually find them touting annulments.

3. Steve - July 20, 2013

Now, to be fair to the “post-conciliar Church”…I’m not sure that sodomite “marriage” became inevitable “when the post-conciliar Church seemed to renege on her infallible teaching to be the sole means of salvation when the human element of the Church established an annulment industry to rival that of secular divorce courts…”

Yes, it’s true, as I had mentioned in my earlier post to this thread, that one only need to read church bulletins from Richardson/Plano parishes (parishes with which I am familiar) to get the impression that they tout annulments…Catholic divorce.

But I am not certain that the post-Conciliar Church is responsible for the collapse of marriage here, there and everywhere.

Again, to be at least a bit fair, in the “pre-Conciliar Church” when the Traditional Roman Mass was in place, in many Catholic countries, the notion existed that a great many married Catholic men were almost expected to cheat on their wives…to maintain mistresses.

That said, Protestantism ravaged marriage long before the “post-Conciliar Church” entered the picture.

Again in fairness to the “post-Conciliar Church,” on March 8, 2013 A.D., Quinnipiac University reported on their recent national poll in regard to “American Catholics support of same-sex marriage”.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/quinnipiac-poll-55-weekly-mass-attending-catholics-oppose-same-sex-marriage

Among “post-Conciliar Catholics” who assist at Mass each Sunday, by a wide margin, 55 percent of said Catholics oppose sodomite “marriage”…38 percent voiced support for sodomite “marriage” and 9 percent either did not know or did not give an applicable response.

Now, each Mass-attending Catholic should oppose sodomite marriage.

But considering what the majority of “American Catholics” have, for decades, been subjected to at Novus Ordo Masses and parishes, it is a hopeful sign that 55 percent of Catholics who assist at Mass regularly, at least in the United States, continue to oppose sodomite “marriage”.

I believe that there are too many “post-Conciliar Catholics” who oppose sodomite marriage to support Michael Matt’s claim that sodomite marriage is linked inevitably to the “post-Conciliar Church”.

4. Richard - July 21, 2013

“To this day, Pope Pius XII remains the unlikely hero of extremist proponents of natural birth control because of a 1951 address to the Italian midwives in which he allowed for grave circumstances which might justify rare and limited use of natural means to regulate births over and above periodic abstinence. ”

I think the above statement covered a portion of the time period where many Catholics from 1930 to 1970 practiced the old fashioned “rhythm” method. The old fashioned “rhythm” method used a calendar method which involves days of abstinence should a couple wished not to conceive. Critics of the old fashioned “rhythm” method say it was about 80% effective as a natural mean to regulate births. Another natural mean is breast feeding after birth, since a women’s cycle stops for a period of months when she is breastfeeding.

The old fashioned “rhythm” method is not the same thing as NFP. I never heard of NFP until the mid-1980’s when I was on a high school retreat with a small group. NFP utilizes more science than the old fashioned “rhythm” method.

I don’t know if NFP was discussed at these marriage encounters. I would think it varied depending on who the leaders were at that time. I heard several marriage encounter weekends in the 1970’s and 1980’s told participants that ABC was OK. However, I’ve heard testimonials from women who said that after being on ABC for a while, they felt “used”.

Another thing that it sad is I’ve heard stories from those who went to engaged encounter weekends in the 1970’s and 1980’s and were told that ABC was OK. What’s even sadder is some priests (some, not all) in the 1970’s and 1980’s told engaged couples that ABC was OK.

I’m sure there are couples using NFP for reasons such as “I have to keep up our Mercedes payments and living in a $500,000 house”, which IMHO is an abuse of the purpose of NFP. However, some couples use NFP for medical reasons (such as diabetes), which IMHO is OK.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: