Incredible – Pope Francis chides woman for being open to life in risk pregnancy January 20, 2015
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return.trackback
Wow. Just mind-blowing. There is no bottom, apparently.
While returning from the Philippines, Pope Francis gave some more off-the-cuff comments that are more than just head-scratching. While many view his comments against contraceptive use made in Manila as the strongest he has made yet in his papacy, on the plane flight, I think the language could be charitably described as “unfortunate.” What is not unfortunate, but sad, disappointing, and discouraging, was the Pope’s apparent choice to chide a woman who had a somewhat risky pregnancy after having 7 other children:
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) – Catholics should not feel they have to breed “like rabbits” because of the Church’s ban on contraception, Pope Francis said on Monday, suggesting approved natural family planning methods.
Francis used the unusually frank language during an hour-long news conference on the plane from Manila to Rome at the end of his week-long Asia trip. …
Francis spoke at length about birth control and population, issues that arose in the Philippines, where the local Church opposes a government law making contraceptives easily available. [with abortion sure to follow. Turncoats to the Faith helped in the passing of the law, including many politicians]
“Some think, excuse me if I use the word, that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits – but no,” he said, adding the Church promoted “responsible parenthood”. [That is an unfortunate phrase in Guadium Et Spes, the “counter-Syllabus.” Responsible parenthood is also addressed, at least indirectly, in Humanae Vitae. Assumptions are made in both documents regarding “overpopulation,” which won’t be a threat much longer as birth rates plummet worldwide and total world population looks set to peak around 2050 and then begin a precipitous decline. So the primary argument for “responsible parenthood” is built in a chimera, an unstable situation that will not last.]
He mentioned a woman he recently met who already had seven children by caesarean sections and put her life at risk by becoming pregnant again. He said he chided her for “tempting God” and added: “That was an irresponsibility.” [So, really? That’s the message? Our lives are worth so much more than the lives of those we could bring into the world? I know women who have had 6 or 7 caesareans, and I didn’t know that was somehow high risk. Maybe there were other complications. But if the woman becomes pregnant, is that not a gift from God she should trust in? Can you imagine how devastating it would be to be corrected in this manner from the Holy Father? That woman may have a serious crisis of faith, if not lose it entirely. How sad]
The leader of the 1.2-billion-strong Roman Catholic Church restated its ban on artificial birth control, adding there were “many ways that are allowed” to practise natural family planning.
I’ve got nothing else. I cannot imagine how confusing and devastating this is for souls who are not terribly well formed but who strive to live according to the Faith as they know it.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 
St Gianna, ora pro nobis
Thought the same thing. Such an irresponsible saint….
The article is from the news agency Reuters, hardly a Catholic-friendly organization! Did the Pope speak in English? If not, I want a translation from a Catholic source. Also, what was the context? And what is the correct translation of everything he said before and after these remarks.
Really tired of the “I want to see what he REALLY said” mantra. Going all the way back to “Who am I to Judge” the irresponsibility of this pope is amazing. And the men he chose to lead and distort the Synod on the “Family” speaks volumes – As does his personal selection of Blaise “I am not going to politicize the communion rail” Cupich to head the Archdiocese of Chicago. As my dear departed mama used to say, “actions speak louder than words!” And his actions have made clear who he is. We have survived terrible papacies in the past, and we will survive this one. In fact, his papacy only CONFIRMS that it is the Holy Spirit Who guides and upholds Our Mother theChurch….
Amen. Well said.
Double Amen, baseball mom
Jimmy Aiken? ?
UGH, just ugh. As an NFP teacher I hear this kind of distortion too often and now from our Papa. Sadly, the overwhelming message of “responsible parenthood” seems to be slanted to smaller families. Why don’t we believe God is the Creator of all life? Are we to believe that our will circumvents His in the role of creating life? And a few decades ago when there were no methods of NFP was everyone just irresponsible? I understand that there are people living in poverty, but how about if we address their poverty instead of trying to rid the world of poor children? Thanks for the post.
NFP is simply Catholic contraception. The intent is the same as using a condom or taking a pill…..having sex without having a child. The intent is what matters, the methodology is irrelevant.
Right on Tim:+) It’s all about intent:+) God bless~
So, he’s saying that God is also irresponsible, because God had the option to not give her any more children as well.
You are condemning the Pope because of Reuter’s translation. How flimsy is your trust in the successor to Peter.
Dude, we’ve had doozies for Popes in the past. Take a Church history course and heal yourself of papal idolatry. This Pope’s legacy (per Mundabor, and I agree) will be sacrilege, heresy and blasphemy…a hat-trick of evil. Pray for him…that he repent and lead the Church in truth. God bless~
You are the one who needs to study the history of the Catholic Church! Never in the past 2,000 years has a pope spoke infallibly on a matter of faith and morals in a way that reversed a critical doctrine of the Church. You are only speaking of popes who have personally sinned in fornication, robbery, etc. Can you understand the different?
The Pope here is not speaking formally i.e. from the chair of Peter/or in union with the bishops which is the ONLY time infallibility comes into play. (Please read the documents of Vatican I) I urge you to learn about A) what constitutes infallibility B) the actual heretical Popes (John XXIII comes to mind). I recommend going over to Louie Verrechio’s blog “Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II” and reading the past year of his blogs. It will inform you of actual Church teaching and history. It sounds like you’ve got a lot of zeal, which is great…now it’s time to learn and conform to what the Church teaches via the deposit of faith and Tradition. God bless you:+)
“Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations”— Melchior Cano, the great Dominican theologian at the sixteenth-century Council of Trent.
Anyone speaking this way promulgating birth control is no pope!
You do not know that natural birth control can be perfectly acceptable?
WRONG.
I’ll bet the Pope’s view is shared by most priests in the U.S. When I asked a Dallas Deacon, back in my more ignorant, sinful days, if it was okay to get a vasectomy, his only response was “you have to take care of the children you have”. There was no mention of Church teaching (and I ran with the answer he gave me, which is the one I wanted, God forgive me).
You compare the pope’s comment to a priest who refused to instruct you that vasectomy’s are serious sins?
Both are advocating birth control, so why not:+) God bless~
That’s exactly what I am doing. Both spring from the same sentiment.
The whole exchange is wrong on so many levels. These days, the LAST thing Catholics need to hear is a another reason to keep their families small.
You are comparing the Western world where Catholic families can barely keep population at the same level to Third World countries where people making twenty cents a day have 14 children? Natural family planning has always been approved by the Church and can be used by the latter.
WRONG.
Agree with Tim. NFP didn’t exist until the second half of the 20th century so to say I that the Church has always approved is waaay off. Humanae Vitae is written by a modernist Pope (who gave us the horror mass that is the novus ordo by the way) who wrote in such vague terms as “responsible parenting” to open the door to the aptly called “Catholic contraception” i.e. NFP. The only thing NFP is good for is trying to have children if their are fertility issues. If grave circumstances prohibit children, abstinence is the Catholic answer i.e. chastity. Read the Lives of the Saints, many had chaste marriages…and boy were these people holy:+) God bless~
During the past several days via the blogosphere, countless Catholics (Traditionalists particularly) had heaped upon Pope Francis great praise for his having upheld and promoted Humanae Vitae.
Are Traditional Catholics unaware that the phrase “responsible parenthood” is employed, for example, multiple times in Humanae Vitae?
Humanae Vitae…#10:
“Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of *******responsible parenthood*******…”
“…with regard to the biological processes, *******responsible parenthood******* means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions.”
“With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, *******responsible parenthood******* means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.”
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, *******responsible parenthood******* is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
“*******Responsible parenthood*******, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”
“In a word, the exercise of *******responsible parenthood******* requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”
Pax.
Aloysius…”These days, the LAST thing Catholics need to hear is a another reason to keep their families small.”
They won’t hear that from Pope Francis.
December 28, 2014 A.D.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/28/pope_francis_to_large_families_you_are_a_gift_to_society/1116244
Pope Francis to large families: you are a gift to society
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis said on Sunday that “in a world often marred by selfishness, a large family is a role model for solidarity and sharing and this benefits the whole of society.”
The Pope’s remarks came during an address to a gathering of around 7,000 people belonging to an Italian association for large families.
Speaking to the families and their children, Pope Francis said he was pleased to meet them, saying it was clear that they “love the family and they love life.”
“Each of your children”, he said, “was wanted by God” and it amazes us “how great a miracle is a child.” A child is somebody who changes our life.
He also underlined the important role played by grandparents, saying they can not only provide practical support but above all can help the parents pass down to their children their faith.
The Pope went on to urge politicians and the local administration to provide more support to help people with large families, lamenting that such help is not always forthcoming.
He concluded his address with a special prayer for families hit by the economic crisis where either the father or mother have lost their jobs or where the young can’t find employment, as well as all families struggling with solitude and divisions.
And please, continue praying for me, the Pope ended, “because in a way I’m like a grandfather for all of you.”
Which only further confirms this Pope’s pattern of talking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the day, the weather, what he had for breakfast, the particular mood he’s in, or most likely of all….who he’s talking to.
The pope is more interested in being liked than upholding Church teaching. So yes it depends on who he’s talking to.
No, it depends on who is translating his words AND in what context they are taken out of AND how they are interpreted by people who do not understand the language he spoke them in.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I know that many are aware of the fact that Humanae Vitae uses that phrase repeatedly. And if you read a bit, you will find that many rue the term, as it is an example of modernist imprecision.
Humanae Vitae garnered attention because of the cultural milieu of the age and because of the rebellion against it. Apart from that it was not any sort of groundbreaking document. Like many encyclicals, it simply reiterated Catholic doctrine while introducing the terminology you refer to. It is for that that some consider it a type of Trojan Horse.
So, yes, many are aware of what you point out and many have noted that this terminology is problematic.
Are you able to clarify the intention of this post? Might you perhaps let us know if these statements on the part of a Pope cause you no consternation?
The manner in which His Holiness conveys various statements, via press conferences and media interviews, often causes me consternation.
His Holiness is on record as having noted that the news media have distorted his statements and image repeatedly.
Therefore, why does he continue to submit himself to the news media?
Or more to the point, why does Pope Francis, who is aware of repeated news media-generated distortions of his Pontificate, not exercise greater care when dealing with the news media?
With so many distorted and explosive moments related to his casual…off-the-cuff” Papal style, it is mind-boggling that Pope Francis is determined to continue said style.
That is true particularly in regard to his countless controversial moments with the news media.
Please, Holy Father, let this latest such moment serve as your final controversial moment in regard to press conferences/interviews.
Pax.
They cause me lots of consternation, which I thought I made clear at the top. The whole line of “responsible parenthood” is a huge, gaping hole through which modernists can drive trucks full of contraceptives.
I did a post years back on a paper somebody wrote – I think it was in Latin Mass Magazine or Homiletics and Pastoral Review – that criticized Humanae Vitae on exactly that front. Humanae Vitae accepts many arguments of the population control enthusiasts as fact: that the world is dreadfully overpopulated, that children are often a burden and not a blessing, that we’re destroying the environment, that children are too expensive to raise, etc., etc. In fact, much of the document reads like an excuse to OK the use of contraceptives, but at the last minute, rhetorically, changes tack and says no, it is still not permitted. That line of reasoning provided loads of ammunition to dissenters to reject Church Doctrine as reaffirmed in HV, and also provides a sort or rhetorical backdrop for the whole Theology of the Body corruption of Doctrine as well as abuse of NFP. Many ToB type NFP promoters argue that it is perfectly acceptable to use NFP from having any children, ever, for reasons strictly of convenience or preference. At the very least, much of the verbiage of HV has been used or abused to unleash very destructive forces in the Church.
Tara Brelinsky…”As an NFP teacher I hear this kind of distortion too often and now from our Papa. Sadly, the overwhelming message of “responsible parenthood” seems to be slanted to smaller families. Why don’t we believe God is the Creator of all life? Are we to believe that our will circumvents His in the role of creating life? And a few decades ago when there were no methods of NFP was everyone just irresponsible? I understand that there are people living in poverty, but how about if we address their poverty instead of trying to rid the world of poor children? Thanks for the post.
Please confer Natural Family Planning International (founded by John and Sheila Kippley, who had founded the Couple to Couple League decades ago).
http://www.nfpandmore.org/nfpreasons.shtml
The above link will take you their reprint of the 2005 A.D. Homelitic & Pastoral Review article that discusses the phrase “reponsible parenthood”.
You will find that said phrase, employed by Pope Francis, was uttered in the same sense that you will find in the Homelitic & Pastoral Review article above.
He kind of cursed her child.
“Sanctity of life will be held in derision, even by those who outwardly proclaim it. For in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a Destroyer.” St. Francis, 1226
No he didn’t! Do you work for Reuters?
Everybody within and without the Church has gone ballistic in regard to Pope Francis’ “rabbit” phrase and “responsible parenthood” phrase.
The secular news media have again misrepresented His Holiness.
In turn, the Catholic blogosphere picked up on the secular media reports and, in many ways…as usual…overreacted .
Yes…Pope Francis’ use of the phrase “breed like rabbits” was unfortunate.
There are things that I would like to say about that…but I had better shut my mouth.
But the sense of that which Pope Francis had declared in regard to “responsible parenthood” was in line with Traditional Catholic teaching.
That said, once again another Papal press conference (sometimes one-on-one interviews) with the news media has exploded not just in Pope Francis’ face, but in our collective Catholic face.
His Holiness cannot continue with his “casual…off-the-cuff” style when dealing with the news media.
Dear Pope Francis, please, Your Holiness, realize that the above style is not conducive to tranquility within Holy Mother Church.
Pax.
I believe the Pope’s only fault is to not see that the atheist news media is distorting and mistranslating his comments. There was a reason past Popes have made themselves only available on a formal basis.
“He kind of cursed her child.”
No.
Two faced liar: says one thing during Mass then another thing as supposedly a private citizen. Frankly, when Pope Francis comes to America – I will pray for him – yet warn my now grown kids that “Pope Francis is a two-faced liar!”
What – you think he should have taken Janus I rather than Francis I?
Are you a Catholic or an atheist troll?
What are you?
When I saw the “Greatest Story Ever Told” movie in the theaters at age 10, when I heard the Jesus actor quote Luke’s Gospel 23 passage, “Women of Jerusalem: weep not for Me, but for yourselves and for your children; for the Days Will Come When Men Will Say, ‘Blessed Are The Barren.'”
As I heard those Biblical words said by that actor Max von Sydow, Jesus told me interiorly, “You will live long enough, to see those words, fullfilled.” I was age 10, and had no idea what Jesus meant, but, I knew Jesus was very sad, that day, and wanted to share His Pain and Sorrow with me, that little 10 year old girl, watching that movie with my dad, in a movie theator.
Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses.
“…the sense of that which Pope Francis had declared in regard to ‘responsible parenthood’ was in line with Traditional Catholic teaching.”
One thing about Catholicism – a person can always learn something they did not know before.
It would be easy to have read a whole lot of material provided before the Second Vatican Council and yet to have missed where something like “responsible parenthood” was taught by the Church. And if indeed the Church ever spoke in terms of parents, by acts of their own will, limiting the number of children they had or “spacing” them based upon their own prudential judgment, I missed it or have forgotten it.
So can someone please do me the favor of describing for me that “line” of “Traditional Catholic teaching” that does so?
The “responsible parenthood” teaching, such as it is, is singularly unhelpful. It is so vague and devoid of concrete guidance that it is worse than useless. I mentioned on another blog that my understanding of pre-V II teaching was the primary purpose of the conjugal act was procreation of children, then unity of spouses, then a guard against sin. HV seems to have put procreation and unity on par.
The view you express here, Mr. Matt, is quite common, as you probably know. We are waiting for someone to educate us as to this “line of Traditional Catholic teaching” from which the idea of parents, upon their own judgment, limiting procreation springs.
One is free to disagree, but certainly a cogent argument can be made that the best Humanae Vitae does is reiterate established Catholic doctrine in places, while in other places introducing revolutionary concepts via typical modernist vaguespeak such as “responsible parenthood”, which can mean pretty much whatever you want it to.
This is different from saying that it’s author had this or that particular intent. That part is not ours to know.
That is the thing: “responsible parenthood” is not traditional Catholic teaching, unless we mean by traditional to incorporate the developments in HV that make reference to this notion. Even there, though, HV upheld that grave reasons are necessary in order for one to have recourse to natural methods.
What is very unfortunate about HV is conceding ground to the “overpopulation” argument. That the commission took this seriously and even sought to incorporate that concern into the “grave reasons” condition traditionally upheld, rather than immediately sense that “overpopulation” is a worldly temptation for the Church to abandon Her teaching, is telling.
Subject: Carey Winter Article
scan0001
.pdf
Download View
Good resource:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=case+concerning+catholic+contraception
This is the legacy of Personalism, I fear. There is a philosophical clash in the heart of Catholicism at present. The Church, authoritatively I believe, has opted for Thomism as the basis of Her philosophy. With the embrace of Personalism, there is a now an ongoing contradiction that manifests itself. This is one such example.
There used to be a time when the ‘default’ position of the Catholic was to abandon one’s self to Divine Providence. One accepted children as a gift from God. But this notion of “responsible parenthood” has arisen. As far as I’m aware, the Church has not “always” spoken this way, despite reports to the contrary.
Whatever the origin of the phrase, it is, in many respects, at war with the abandonment to Providence view. If families can now be ‘planned’, of course without the use of contraception, but with recourse to natural methods, one wonders what is to guide that ‘plan’ or whom? The Church was clear from the start that having recourse to natural methods did not mean a ‘plan’ the way many understand it today. The Church actually provided the condition that only in grave circumstances could one have recourse to such methods so as to be prudent, so as to be “responsible”. But the goal was never to plan anything.
Perhaps this is what Pope Francis was referencing. But then, ironically, there is so much potential for trusting in God even in the circumstances he references that for him to cast a judgment upon the conscience of the mother in question – and that is what he has done! – is not only unrealistic, but scandalous and entirely misguided.
Oh, the irony! We live in times when the prevailing Catholic consciousness is anything but “judgmental” and all potential mitigating factors are bandied about by moral theologians, to the degree that some think it’s just about impossible to commit a mortal sin. And the Pope himself has fueled this non-judgmental fire as we all know.
And yet, in the sacred arena of the conscience of a mother who is open to life – imagine, with seven children already – she is chided definitively and publicly by the Pope for her openness because she is deemed ‘irresponsible’, reckless before God.
Is this woman not due the same sort of deference that the supposed “gay priest” was, the one who received papal clearance in a previous interview because he was “seeking God” even though he is “gay”?
Different religion.
Maybe through the distortion of the atheist, anti-Catholic news media?
William, see here: http://americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/full-transcript-popes-press-conference-flight-manila
Thanks for the link to the full text which shows the Pope finished by saying: “but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother that see a treasure in every child.” I DID NOT read that in the mainstream media!
Don’t forget about the anti-catholic “mainstream” Catholic media as well.
Maybe the woman was trying natural family planning and it didn’t work.
And maybe she was not educated in NFP. In a poor country, that’s quite possible.
Why would you educate someone to commit grave sin?
The pope also mentioned how he’d like to come across the border into the USA in solidarity with illegal immigrants. To me that’s even more scandalous than the rabbit comment. Let us pray for a short papacy.
He definitely did make the Rabbit comparison; that was wrong. I address it on the most recent post on my blog: http://dsdoconnor.com/2015/01/20/dear-pope-francis-why-that-word/
1. Orthodox Catholics have begged Churchmen for decades to defend and promote Humanae Vitae vigorously. Pope Francis has done so vigorously.
2. The point that Pope Francis made in regard to “responsible parenthood” is referenced several times in Humanae Vitae.
3. If an orthodox Catholic accepts the validity of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (and he must if he is orthodox), then he understands and accepts Pope Francis’ underlying meaning in the Pope’s reference to “responsible parenthood”.
4. It is undeniable that Pope Venerable Pius XII taught the Church’s principle of “responsible parenthood”.
5. Vatican II upheld said teaching.
6. Again, Pope Venerable Paul VI, via the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, upheld said teaching.
7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church upholds said teaching.
8. Incredibly, many knowledgeable orthodox Catholics have reacted to Pope Francis’ reference to “responsible parenthood” with shock…”I’ve never heard of that teaching…not one Pope prior to Vatican II taught the principle of “responsible parenthood”…
…(they had forgotten about Pope Venerable Pius XII?).
9. Said teaching must be explained carefully…as apparent when even knowledgeable orthodox Catholics seem amazed that the Church teaches the concept of “responsible parenthood”.
10. The time to reference said teaching is not aboard an airplane during a press conference conducted by a Pope who has trafficked in “casual, off-the-cuff-, colorful” actions and comments.
11. Pope Francis has noted that the news media have often twisted his words.
12. Therefore, it is mind-boggling that he had delved into such a topic as “responsible parenthood”.
13. To make matters worse…unless the news media mistranslated his words…Pope Francis uttered the unfortunate phrase that Catholics aren’t called to “breed like rabbits”.
14. Even without that reference, Pope Francis, during the unnecessary press conference in question, should have done simply that which he had done during the previous few days (and other times)…
…remain on script in regard to pro-life issues.
Teachings in regard to “responsible parenthood” required greater time and depth than could be found during a press conference aboard an airplane…particularly as news media types, as Pope Francis had noted, have a history of having misrepresented his actions and words.
15. Bottom line…Pope Francis had once again upheld and promoted the Church’s teachings in regard to the Culture of Life.
Once again, unfortunately, Pope Francis uttered a remark that the news media could very easily have twisted…and they did so…as is their standard practice.
Once again, no matter how much at fault the news media are in this situation…and they are…Pope Francis’ “casual, off-the-cuff, colorful” style of speech has led to controversy.
Pope Francis, as long as he is determined to deal in “casual, off-the-cuff, colorful” fashion with the news media, will court controversy.
As usual, Pope Francis promoted orthodox teachings…but included an unnecessary statement that the news media…and in fairness, Catholics (liberal and Traditional), would twist undoubtedly.
What a shame!
Please, Pope Francis, eschew press conferences/interviews.
Pax.
Still waiting for specific references to that “line of Traditional Catholic teaching” referenced above where something like “responsible parenthood” was taught by the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council whereby parents, by acts of their own will, may limit the number of children they have or “space” them based upon their own prudential judgment.
From Castii Connubii, Pope Pius XI
53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.
Precisely! To my knowledge THAT is the line of Traditional Catholic teaching on this subject predating the Second Vatican Council. The argument is that the phrase “responsible parenthood” opens the gates to a line of thought opposed to this.
Dear Mr. O’Connor, my brother in Christ,
Wow!
I just clicked the link to your blog and read your post in question.
What a tremendous post!
That is the finest treatment that I have read in regard to Pope Francis’ “responsible parenthood/breed like rabbits” controversy.
Thank you particularly for the following critical point…you are 100 percent correct…Pope Francis recognized that he had misspoken…then attempted to apologize for his unfortunate remark.
You are very astute. You have taught me well today.
===================================================
From Mister O’Connor’s blog:
“I remain a great supporter of our Holy Father, and I will continue to unconditionally submit to all of his Magisterium; whether that be Encyclicals, Apostolic Exhortations, or what have you.
“I continue to love and admire him, and I still believe he has the makings of a saint.
“But Pope Francis himself asked us to call him out if he errs; he asked us to do so publicly. That is all I am doing here; fulfilling his request.
“He made an off the cuff remark during an interview; you can’t get less Magisterial than that.
“Not to mention, he began to kind of apologize for it in the next paragraph of the transcript (I advise you read the actual transcript, not the mainstream media reports of it);
“I write this article in the off-chance that somehow it will encourage him to go a little further than he did in that next paragraph, and truly and fully apologize for using that comparison.
“Off-the-cuff comments about people having too few kids are hurtful — for example, so often they are directed against couples who very much wanted more kids, but were unable.
“Catholics should never make comments like that. But off-the-cuff comments like Pope Francis’ rabbit comparison are also hurtful. Let us do neither.”
Pax.
Why are you waiting? Refer simply to Pope Venerable Pius XII’s teaching in regard to responsible parenthood.
By the way, do you reject the Church’s teachings in regard to responsible parenthood via Pope Venerable Pius XII, the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catechism of the Catholic Church…The Magisterium?
Do you reject Jesus Christ’s declaration that he would send the Holy Ghost to guide His Church in teaching the truth?
Is the Catholic Church mistaken in Her teachings regarding responsible parenthood?
Pax.
I’m still waiting for your reply to my question many posts ago, Steve. If Pope Francis directs one Catholic person on to the road to perdition, you know, Hell, is he still a good pope?
And if you, in your comments, lead one person to mistrust the pope and leave the Church, is it YOUR fault?
Mistrusting the pope is one thing, leaving the Church is another. I do not trust this pope when he is not acting infallibly, but wild horses will not drive me from the Church!
Everything you cited (except for what Pope Pius XII…and where are his words?) is after and including the modernist era. I don’t believe a jot that has been said since V2. I follow the deposit of faith and every dogmatic/doctrinal teaching that MATCHES it. Encyclicals are ordinary magisterium and can be wrong…and don’t get me started on V2 which was a nightmare and not even dogmatic. I will cite Scripture “be fruitful and multiply” and wait for authentic teachings to be posted. NFP should only be used to have children…abstinence i.e. chastity is to be used for grave reasons. Read the Lives of the Saints…many had chaste marriages that bore huge spiritual fruit. Only in our sex addicted “modern” world would we come up with a way to have sex and avoid the blessings of children. God bless~
Before HV: unitive and procreative not on the same level, if you will. Procreative is the end of marriage.
HV and forward: unitive and procreative on the same level, if you will.
So, when we’re called to heed the Church’s teachings, it is necessary to ask: which? Or, how should we understand the Church’s teaching, given this difference?
Can you do us the favor of reproducing that for us here? I’m a bit unclear as to what you are referring to specifically. Pardon my ignorance.
Your questions are a bit misleading, or perhaps I should say, “leading.” So, by the way, I do make effort to truly understand authentic Catholic teaching and distinguish it from much of what winds up contradicting that teaching.
You do a good job of numerically listing things. Are you able to do so with teachings of the Catholic Church, prior to the Second Vatican Council, whereby parents, by acts of their own will, may limit the number of children they have or “space” them based upon their own prudential judgment?
God bless you William but I think we’ve come to the point where we have to stop using the translation excuse.
Why because it fits YOUR agenda? Translation of words plays a big part here . . . perhaps the biggest part, after the main factor: the desire of the media and anti-Catholics to alienate Catholics from the Holy Father.
Oh … and God Bless you too.
Woody…”I’m still waiting for your reply to my question many posts ago, Steve. If Pope Francis directs one Catholic person on to the road to perdition, you know, Hell, is he still a good pope?”
Woody, I am sorry, but I searched this thread several times just now and failed to locate your post in question.
By the way, I hit the “reply” button rarely for a certain post.
I read a post. Then, rather than reply, for example, to a post “right there”, so to speak, I simply post my response at the end of the thread.
I find it easier to post responses to the end of the line.
To your question…I wouldn’t think that Pope Francis would be looked upon as a good Pope should he lead a person(s) to hell.
Are you concerned that Pope Francis has led somebody to hell?
Pax.
Yes.
If your comments lead people to leave the Church, do they lead people to Hell? Think about it, please.
If a pastoral council chock full of error and a protestantized and masonized liturgy cause people to literally leave the Church or to leave the Church through embracing error do they lead them to Hell? Think about it, please.
Dear skeinster,
Pope Venerable Pius XII promoted clearly the teaching of responsible parenthood.
Do you believe that his teaching in that regard is unorthodox?
Thank you.
Pax.
No, no, no. I quoted that to answer Cristeros’s assertion that Catholic tradition never allowed for “responsible parenthood”.
I think he misread me.
It might be helpful for us all to consider two things: “be fruitful and multiply” is a proscriptive command. You do it to the best of your ability, utilizing the graces of the sacrament of Matrimony.
But if, for some reason beyond your control, you can’t do it- you’re not at fault.
If for some reason, you shouldn’t do it- that’s allowed, too as long as the criteria is met.
This in one of those area where we, in our fervent desire to not fall into the errors of laxness, must also not go overboard in the other direction and start distorting doctrine. It’s a fine line, and we don’t do very well with fine lines, but we must make the effort.
Willam Nat…”Maybe through the distortion of the atheist, anti-Catholic news media?”
William, every translation that I have read on what I believe are reliable Catholic news/internet outlets has quoted Pope Francis as having uttered the awful remark about Catholics and “rabbits”.
The finest commentary that I have read on the controversy came from Daniel O’Connor in post #20 to this thread…which featured a link to his blog and commentary in question.
He noted that as soon as Pope Francis uttered the awful “rabbit” remark, His Holiness backtracked on said remark.
Mr. O’Connor noted also that Pope Francis apologized in a sense for having lumped Catholics with “rabbits”.
Other than that, His Holiness offered remarks in regard to responsible parenthood that are simply the teaching of the True Church.
Pope Venerable Pius XII promoted the teaching in regard to responsible parenthood.
In regard to “responsible parenthood,” Pope Francis did not say anything new.
In regard to media distortion…yes, that, as usual, entered the picture in regard to Pope Francis.
Various news media outlets have spun the Pope’s remarks in question as “evidence” that Pope Francis has overthrown Church teaching…he desires Catholics to have same families…
In fact, Pope Francis met recently with large families and exhorted Catholic married couples to cultivate large families.
At any rate, I would be shocked if Pope Francis, at least via a Holy See’s press spokesman, does not “clarify” (apologize again) for his unfortunate “rabbit” remark.
Pax.
Steve, since you like to reply a lot, what is “responsible parenthood”? Does it mean if a man loses his job and already has kids, his wife and he should refrain from intercourse, until he gets a job? Do you have to be open to life at all times even if you are sick or unemployed? (I’m past the age of reproduction and live by myself so this all doesn’t affect me.) I just want to know.
I have to admit the “rabbits” remake did make me laugh.
3 kids. We’re only supposed to have THREE and no more. Maybe he’ll put it in a doctrine. Evangelium Pediatricum. Question : do we get to have 3 per subsequent marriage after divorce?
direct translation from the Vatican Insider:
I believe that three children per family, from what the experts say, is the key number for sustaining the population. The key word here is responsible parenthood and each person works out how to exercise this with the help of their pastor. … Sorry, some people think that in order to be good Catholics we have to breed like rabbits, right? Responsible parenthood: This is why there are marriage support groups in the Church with people who are experts on such issues; and there are pastors and I know that there are many acceptable solutions that have helped with this. And another thing: For poor people, children are a treasure, prudence is needed here too, it is true. Responsible parenthood but also recognizing the generosity of that father or mother who see their child as a treasure.
Seattle Kim
Un-frigging-believeable. I went to the Vatican Insider website (not that I doubted you!) and sure enough…..the Pope.actually.said.that. The Pope actually said that we should only have three children, or words to that effect, no doubt. Wow. I keep thinking that it can’t get any worse, this Pope, and the next day presents even more. Pathetic. Shameful.
It’s all screwed up!
Now you are embellishing the story. Do you work for CBS? MSNBC? When did his holiness say we should only have three children? Maybe you work for the BBC or Reuters?
@Willam Nat: You’re funny. From the Vatican Insider, via the Washington Post:
“Here’s his exact words from the Vatican Insider:
“I believe that three children per family, from what the experts say, is the key number for sustaining the population. The key word here is responsible parenthood and each person works out how to exercise this with the help of their pastor. … Sorry, some people think that in order to be good Catholics we have to breed like rabbits, right? Responsible parenthood: This is why there are marriage support groups in the Church with people who are experts on such issues; and there are pastors and I know that there are many acceptable solutions that have helped with this.”
??
Which one do you work for?
Even Chicago’s Cardinal George lamented that it is increasingly difficult to defend indefensible statements by Pope Francis. (I’m paraphrasing)
Please DO NOT paraphrase here! This whole mess is very much a result of paraphrasing!
This whole mess is caused by Vatican 2, the Novus Ordo, modernist Churchmen and neo-catholics.
Don’t correct me. No one pushes me around, because I push back. I am entitled to comment. As are you. But no one has the right to judge or correct my statements. Don’t open your mouth or talk to me, on this comment section. I take bs from no one. Got that?
Confusion reigns. That is not bedrock but shifting sand again.
So what? There was confusion among the 12 apostles too while Jesus was personally present on this Earth.
Non sequitur since the diffusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The situations are not alike, or should not be.
BULLS. EYE.
A pope is not supposed to introduce novelty and cause confusion. He is duty bound to defend the UNCHANGEABLE Deposit of Faith. PERIOD.
Oops. Just found out we’re having a third child. Mea culpa…? NOT. Dynasty of Saints in Progress. That’ll show ’em.
skeinster…”No, no, no. I quoted that to answer Cristeros’s assertion that Catholic tradition never allowed for “responsible parenthood”.
I think he misread me.”
Mea culpa.
Thank you and peace be with you.
Nope. Never suggested that. Straw man. Of course the Church taught responsible parenthood, but it never presented it in a way that could be misinterpreted. Skeinster gives us a good example. I did not misread Skeinster. I was aware that she was responding to an argument that had not been made. But her response was nonetheless perfect. And steve (or Skeinster):
Can you provide us with an example of the Catholic Church, prior to the Second Vatican Council, teaching that parents, by acts of their own will, may limit the number of children they have or “space” them based upon their own prudential judgment?
in other words, can you provide us with examples of the Church using terminology such as “responsible parenthood” prior to the Second Vatican Council? Casti Connubi is quite unambiguous, and that is precisely my point.
Dear Elizabeth,
Pope Francis noted that “experts” state that three children per couple “keeps the population going”.
But Pope Francis did not say that a Catholic couple should limit their family to three children.
I noted earlier in this thread that just a couple of weeks ago, Pope Francis addressed an association of Catholics who develop large families.
Pope Francis praised the Catholic practice of having large families.
Elizabeth, please don’t worry. Even during his press conference yesterday, Pope Francis praised Catholics who continue to add children to their families.
In his immediate sentences following his unfortunate reference to “rabbits”, Pope Francis backtracked as praised couples who continue to being children into their families.
Pax.
The simple fact that the Pope has the opinions of the “experts” on the ideal population even on his radar is positively alarming.
I take it that Pope Francis meant that it may require at least three children per couple to sustain the population.
His Holiness did not in any way exhort couples to limit their families to three children per family.
As I noted earlier, just about two weeks ago, Pope Francis addressed an association of Catholics who are dedicated to raising large families.
Pope Francis praised their commitment to the concept that Catholic families should grow large.
At any rate, the Pope’s “rabbit” comment is awful.
His “casual, off the cuff, colorful” manner has been shown to be a disastrous approach during his dealings with the news media.
He needs to halt that approach this second…but there isn’t any hint that he will do so.
Oh, well. We can’t alter the Pope’s personality.
Pax.
“His Holiness did not in any way exhort couples to limit their families to three children per family.”
I understand.
What is alarming is allowing that concern to have any weight in the conversation. It is conceding ground to those who will use this argument against the Church and further distort Her teachings. It is also to play into the hands of those who seek to plan out everything in the world. It is a worldly way of thinking.
Where is the spiritual in this way of thinking? If couples are faithful and open to life, even granting the proper context of “responsible parenthood,” what place is there for a Catholic to worry about the population sustaining itself? Our job is to be faithful. Worry of this kind is of Satan and/or of the flesh. God will surely provide for those who trust Him. We must stop allowing secular humanists to dictate the terms. We must be counter-cultural again, supernatural again. Let’s start following God and allowing Him to bless us with the joy that comes from fidelity to His ways and not let the thorns of worldly worry steal from us the gifts of His Spirit.
So, Tantum, what’s the record number of comments for a post?
This event is all over the place……why doesn’t Mr. Voris and CMTV weigh in?
Thank you so much for this. I was beginning to think I was the only one hurt and confused by these latest comments. I struggle daily with the fact that my husband and I should be accepting of all life we are blessed with-we have 4 young kids. Of course it’s not easy, but i dont think following the right path is ever easy. i dont think getting to heaven is easy. And do we prevent new life for the sake of making our own luge journey easier?? These latest comments made me even more confused. The pope stated 3 is an acceptable number of children. Don’t tell that to my 4th who has been nothing short of amazing.
Ah, Meg, how wonderful that you have four children. May God bless you with many more, should that be His will, and may they each grow up and discern the vocations God has intended for them and be utterly faithful to those vocations.
Please do not let this sort of thing trouble you. It is not possible to know how much you have studied the manner in which modernism operates. If you have not paid too much attention to it, you might do so. To understand modernism is to achieve at least some peace of mind when things like this occur and to just roll past them. The resources are there and I know that Tantum can help you come up to speed, if that is what you need.
These are far from healthy times in the Church. This is what it feels like to live in times when almost the entire hierarchy is in the grips of a heresy. For those who would carry this statement too far, I add that it is not my purview to label a particular person a heretic and I do not do so.
We have no duty as Catholics whatsoever to heed anyone, including a pope, who makes statements contrary to the Faith. The fact that he might do so and quickly retract them or apologize for them is not evidence of confusion on his part or of bad habit. Do not be confused. Study modernism. We do have a duty to pray for the pope, that he may be faithful to his own exalted vocation and that he may be converted and saved.
Take comfort. From what you say it sounds as though you understand your own vocation well. God bless you and your family.
Before comments are closed for this entry, can anyone provide us with an example of the Catholic Church, prior to the Second Vatican Council, teaching that parents, by acts of their own will, may limit the number of children they have or “space” them based upon their own prudential judgment?
Can anyone provide us with examples of the Church using vague terminology such as “responsible parenthood” prior to the Second Vatican Council?
Cristeros,
Please go back and read the paragraph I posted. What can it mean but that Catholic couples can choose to abstain to avoid pregnancy? By acts of their own will?
Just because the exact phrase “responsible parenthood” isn’t used, it doesn’t change the meaning.
Again, my point- it does no one any good to make erroneous claims to the extreme opposite of the original false view.
Here are some good resources:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=case+concerning+catholic+contraception
The abandonment of scholasticism, and the adoption of a language that allows for disparate interpretations is no accident. It is simply an elemental tool in the modernist box.
Another tool in that box is the making public of statements that defy Catholic teaching and then making, or have someone else make, a limp attempt to withdraw those statements, the desired impact already having been achieved.
In this age when thinking has been replaced by media, perception is everything. Once these ideas are in the public domain, removing them is like getting toothpaste back into the tube.
Doctrine is not changed…oh no! Let us simply adopt new “pastoral practices.” The result is the same, at least until sanity returns. And it seems that we must accept the fact that there will always be well-meaning apologists for all of it.
From a young woman’s point of view – if that were me, I would be devastated – imagine getting a chance to speak to the pope, feeling proud of the 8 children, and BAM he throws that out – that she was irresponsible… If that were her first trimester and her hormones were out of wack, it could send her into a depression, perhaps cause her to leave the church. She may no longer love this child she will bear… The nerve of him… What if by his callous comments he destroys 10 lives directly, and countless others indirectly.
The pope said more than what was quoted above:
“Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: ‘Does she want to leave the seven orphans?’
” ‘This is to tempt God,’ he said, adding later: ‘That is an irresponsibility.’ Catholics, the pope said, should speak of ‘responsible parenthood.’
” ‘How do we do this?’ Francis asked. ‘With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.’
… “THAT IS TO TEMPT GOD…????? He said that to her face???
Different religion.
“It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth; and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph.”
St. Robert Bellarmine
The practice of spacing babies, for example, via breastfeeding, is found within the Holy Bible.
I thought that the above was common knowledge among Traditionalists (and conservatives)?
Pax.
Beat me to it, Steve.
In an abductio absurdum, according to the “as many children as possible” school, mothers should not breastfeed, b/c of the infertility it might cause.
Again, don’t get me wrong. We’re not pointing this out to troll, or because we hate large families, but to counter the idea that the Church as ever demanded that families have a certain number of children. Because that’s simply not true.
Encourage generous parenthood all you can. Restore the fact that the primary aim of marriage is procreation. Have as many children as God blesses you with. Just don’t fib about what the Church actually says.
Of course the Church never demanded that. I’ll admit to not having read in detail every single posting here, so forgive me if I missed something, but did someone, somewhere assert that the Church demanded that? If not, this is a straw man.
I was under the impression that the discussion here was rather about a pope uttering stray comments which disparaged large families.
That reductio ad absurdum is another straw man. That belongs to you, not to anyone commenting here. What, BTW is an “abductio absurdum”?
And if steve beat you to something with that embarrassing response, maybe you should be thankful.
No kidding. I’m smiling and laughing.
With all due respect, steve, please spare us. Your attempt to grasp at straws and your not-so-subtle dig at whatever you perceive as “Traditionalists” illustrate the untenability of your argument. Readers, please note this and be wary.
We ask for examples of where, in Her Magisterium, (prior to the Second Vatican Council) Holy Mother Church teaches that parents, based upon their own volition and prudence are instructed that “spacing babies” (limiting children) is acceptable.
We are provided with a stretch that would be worthy of an all-star shortstop.
Breastfeeding causes the release of significant amounts of prolactin which suppresses ovulation. And this is supposed to be an example of the magisterium? It is, rather, an example of the marvelous wisdom of God Himself. And it is also something common to all women – Catholic, Zoroastrian and atheist.
In case anyone other than steve failed to notice, this is not an example of husband and wife withholding the marital act voluntarily and with the express purpose of avoiding conception supported by magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.
I gotta’ tell ya’, I literally laughed out loud at this one. Pay very close attention, folks. This is either utter confusion or a deliberate though pathetic attempt at deception.
Give us more credit, steve.
Amen to all that, Cristero! My new method is to ignore him.
I see the comments have gotten a bit spicy. I haven’t been able to follow them very much. I think we can safely be assured that the individuals in question are acting from good will. I might not agree with what is being said in every instance, or many instances, but I do think there is general good will. Having said that, I do think there has been a silent assumption made that being concerned about the use of phrases like “responsible parenthood” in the modern parlance is somehow akin to demanding women be constantly pregnant. I haven’t had time to read every comment but of those I have I cannot recall that claim being made. I cannot recall anyone even implying that.
Sorry I cannot be more involved I have had serial disasters at work the past 2 days.
I like that descriptor, “spicy”. Not too bad or mean spirited, as far as I’ve seen. Yes, we all mean well. This post is sure sparking conversation!
Oh, and BTW, comments will not expire until Sunday on this post.
Serious reasons, often put forward on medical, eugenic, economic and social grounds, can exempt from that obligatory service even for a considerable period of time, even for
the entire duration of the marriage. It follows from this that the use of the infertile periods can be lawful from the moral point of view and, in the circumstances which have
been mentioned, it is indeed lawful. If, however, in the light of a reasonable and fair judgment, there are no such serious personal reasons, or reasons deriving from external
circumstances, then the habitual intention to avoid the fruitfulness of the union, while at the same time continuing fully to satisfy sensual intent, can only arise from a false
appreciation of life and from motives that run counter to true standards of moral conduct.
(Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951)
Certainly. And there has been intense debate as to what constitutes “serious reasons.” In other parts of that allocution, Pope Pius XII expands on those reasons in a bit more depth, and uses phrases like “dire poverty” or a terrible persecution in which bringing up a child in the Faith would be nearly impossible. AT least, that is what my memory recalls. I think problems start to enter in, however, when popular presenters of NFP tell souls that it is perfectly acceptable to use NFP to prevent pregnancy for the entirety of a marriage – for more or less any reason at all. Just because you don’t want children. I have heard both Teresa Tomeo and Pia de Sollenni make these claims repeatedly on the radio.
And that is where the concern over “responsible parenthood” comes from. While there is exegesis out there that makes clear what the Church means by that phrase, those sources are mostly pre-conciliar and mostly ignored nowadays. The term has been greatly abused. And that was the point of my comment that it was an unfortunate phrase, because it is not terribly explicit, has proven prone to abuse, and requires quite a bit of digging to understand properly – again, most of which understanding dates from the pre-conciliar period. That fact becomes especially problematic when we consider that the vast majority of Catholics today, even relatively orthodox individuals, do hold that there was some kind of “break” at Vatican II and that pre-conciliar sources can be more or less ignored. Several years ago I had a number of heated exchanges with NFP supporters (mostly Couple-to-Couple league types, including their national director, who I caught out in a monstrous lie), and that fact was born out repeatedly: pre-conciliar sources were sort of tainted, they didn’t have the weight of post-conciliar sources, and when there was any conflict between the two, could be reasonably ignored.
We all bring a lot of baggage to this discussion! That experience taught me a lot, but perhaps too much. It has colored my perspectives on NFP a bit.
So if a woman has serious health issues that would endanger her life, she cannot use NFP indefinitely? A lot of the saints that were married refrained from sex. (I can’t recall who but I know I’ve read of several saint couples.) Were they committing a sin?
Thank you, Branch. This is the sort of thing we have been requesting. It is a very good example of a pre-conciliar statement of a pope allowing for leeway. Certainly there is more to be said, and I’d prefer not to split hairs. I believe that the paucity of such statements might qualify them as useful exceptions that prove the rule.
At any rate, standing back from it all and examining the attitude of Catholics today and comparing that to attitudes prior to the Second Vatican Council leaves little room for doubt about the effects of more recent magisterial statements.
And while the more recent regrettable comments by the Bishop of Rome are not magisterial, few Catholics make this distinction anymore and those statements are consistent with the prevailing attitudes.
I don’t think there is any denying that the “serious reasons” context has been diluted to the point that NFP is considered to be something of a lifestyle now.
And I just found an example in a place I knew I was all but certain to: The Personalist Project.
The blogger writes only yesterday:
“As I read him, the Pope was making mild fun of two things:
1.A secular caricature of Catholic teaching, according to which the prohibition on artificial birth control is all about the Church trying to grow its numbers, regardless of the wellbeing of women and families.
2.A rigorist interpretation of Catholic teaching, not unknown in traditionalist circles, according to which NFP is only licit in grave circumstances (i.e. “dire straits”), and really committed Catholics will mostly avoid it, because it’s holier to “let God decide” how many children we’re going to have.
As someone whose been butting heads with Catholic providentialists for many years, I’m glad the Pope has made the point in such an eye-catching way.
Liberals aren’t the only ones who think that the Church frowns on family planning; many faithful Catholics do too.
They don’t realize that Humanae Vitae didn’t just prohibit artificial birth control; it endorsed natural family planning. And it endorsed it not grudgingly and hesitantly, but warmly and sympathetically, as a good for marriage.”
Source: http://www.thepersonalistproject.org/comments/was_the_pope_mocking_large_families
So, we’ve gone from “serious reasons” to a warm endorsement of NFP as a positive good for marriage. It can be embraced as a lifestyle, it seems.
They would argue, I’m sure, that this is a development rather than a rupture.
The Pope is correct in this matter.
Which pope in which matter?
The original topic was comments made by a pope, quickly retracted or explained away, as is the habit, which of themselves were scandalous and betrayed a sentiment not unfairly regarded as anti-Catholic.
Some came to the defense of the pope attempting to mitigate the damage by pointing out that, in other venues, this pope has made comments consistent with authentic Catholic teaching. This would be of no surprise that he has done so and the explanation for that behavior has been addressed. Elementary modernism.
Choose the point on this whole continuum which best fits your own predilections but it remains obvious that a lot of confusion surrounds all of this on the part of erstwhile faithful Catholics. Again, no surprise since creating confusion is intrinsic to modernist strategy. When you find yourself confused about what should be straightforward, look quickly for the modernists in the soup.
Some are modernists by choice, some become so unwittingly.
Topics that have surfaced as a result are Humanae Vitae, NFP, and a comparison of pre and post-conciliar Catholic thought and teaching (both magisterial and para-magisterial) regarding procreation within marriage.
It seems these would be very interesting topics for another post, or we can follow them up here, but at this stage I would ask if there are those who would still deny that the comments made by Jorge Bergoglio, speaking as Jorge Bergoglio, were scandalous.
Like the kissing of the Koran, if you can explain this sort of thing away it is hard to imagine what would not be excusable.
I really have nothing to say… I just wanted to be comment #50 :-). Even though, we really should have stopped at 3….. 😉
If I may enter the conversation (I hope It’s not too late), I can provide more documents before Vatican II that state that periodic continence in order to avoid pregnancy was allowed. An also, they totally prove false what others herewere saying about being condemned.
There are three general responses of the Apostolic Penitentiary to questions asked by bishops. The translation is mostly mine because I was only able to find them in spanish and latin.
Pius IX
Response from the Sacred Penitentiary, year 1853
Question: Some married faithful, on the opinion of some doctors, are convinced that there are certain days in the month in which they cannot be conception. Should they be disquieted those who only make use of marriage in those days, at least if they have legitimate reasons for absatain from the marital act?”
Answer: Those of which this question is about should not be disturbed, because they are not doing anything to prevent conception.
http://www.enchiridionfamiliae.com/z_componer.php?codigo=0235&buscado=1853
Leo XIII
Response from the Sacred Penitentiary, June 16th 1880
Question: Is it licit to make use of marriage only in those days in which is more difficult to concieve?
Answer: Spouses that act this way should not be disturbed; and the confessor may suggest it -albeit with prudence- to those spouses that he hasn’t been able to move away, by other means, from the detestable crime of onanism.
http://www.enchiridionfamiliae.com/z_componer.php?codigo=0263&buscado=16%20junio%201880
Pius XI
Response from the Sacred Penitentiary, July 20th 1932 (NB: two years after Casti Connubii)
Question: Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.
Answer: provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880
http://www.enchiridionfamiliae.com/z_componer.php?codigo=0339&buscado=20%20julio%201932
As you can see, responsible parenthood, without that name, was being taught way before Vatican II and Humanae Vitae.
The last translation is not mine, but from http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html#FN_9 wich, by the way, may be a worthy reading because it explains all of this and refutes the claim that periodic continence is sinful.
Cheers.
Sorry for this double post, I like to correct the last phrase:
“and refutes the claim that periodic continence is, in principle, sinful”.
I don’t recall anyone saying that, but thanks for the quotes. I think the concern is that unfortunate language gets abused to promote NFP in ways that are not in consonance with the quotes you just made.
My bad, You’re right, nobody literaly said that NFP is condemned, but Tim Thunell and maggycast have both stated things like “The only thing NFP is good for is trying to have children if their are fertility issues. If grave circumstances prohibit children, abstinence is the Catholic answer” (which is certantly false, not that abstinence is not an answer but not THE answer) or “NFP is simply Catholic contraception. The intent is the same as using a condom or taking a pill” (which is wrong in more than one level). Those are the things I was refering to. My apologies for not expressing myself correctly.
I don’t agree 100% with everything in the article I cited, but I think it does a really nice job making the points clear.
You should do some studying sir:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=case+concerning+catholic+contraception
Books by lay authors one of which is not even a theologian (I don’t know about Michael Malone) vs the magisterium of the Church as in my previous quotes, Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, etc.
Which of those you think holds more authority, Tim?
With all due respect to you, Dr. Boyd and Mr Malone (may God grant rest upon his soul), quoting from the Amazon page:
“Perhaps the most controversial of Michael Malone’s criticisms of NFP is his questioning of the validity of making a distinction between periodic continence (NFP) and artificial contraception. He goes so far as to claim that NFP is equivalent to artificial contraception, asking the hard questions: “Can NFP genuinely be considered any less a species of ‘scientific harlotry’ than pills or latex?”
Ehm, well of course there is a significant diference, and whoever doesn’t see it is the one who should do some studying. Contraception is intrinsecally evil because it goes against the very nature of the marital act. If I recall correctly, contraception is basically the sin of onanism, it holds a similar moral valuation as to masturbation. However, periodic continence preserves absolutely intact the nature of the marital act, no matter the intention of the spouses, that’s why it can never have the same moral judgement. And I say no matter the intention because the marital act can only be done according or against nature, and it doesn’t depend on people intentions. There was a very orthodox spanish moral theologian and thomist, Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, which differentiated the two types of sin regarding the sixth commandment, they could be according to nature (basically fornication) and against nature (masturbation and onanism).Of course, that something is done according to nature does not mean is automaticaly licit, but that’s another topic.
I hope that Mr. Malone and Dr. Boyd hold this as the “legitimate line-drawing between NFP and artificial contraception”
Regards
For my part I appreciate the post by Castellan Raimer. Objective information was provided and at least this one reader learned from it. I thank you. The discussion does not end there, and, in fact, I’m not sure this particular discussion ever ends. We have segued off into a discussion of the nuances of NFP and what is and what is not the proper understanding of the withholding of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy.
I’ll go back to what was said before. The magisterium exists not to confuse the Faithful, but to properly guide them. And when there is confusion, as there is in this discussion, it is by design. This is how modernism operates.
Review the material sent by Castellan. See if it is not spoken in a manner very distinguishable from that to which we have become accustomed. Now we should also remember that this sort of guidance, while residing at a certain level of authority, does not rise to the level of more authoritative documents. I defer to experts on this point of the magisterial import of the various levels.
But are we lost in the woods here? Have we forgotten that our novus ordo churches are largely devoid of children, especially when compared to traditional chapels? Have we forgotten that we just had a pope disparage large families, albeit it as a private individual in an off-the-cuff scenario? The latter was the original impetus for this discussion and it is a problem that I do not think we should allow to be explained away.
He does not make these comments by accident or from bad habit. He reveals how Jorge Bergoglio considers these things. They are intended to advance an agenda and to garner attention. So they have garnered our attention. We can explain them away now and put lipstick on the pig, but at some point, likely sooner than later, we are going to be asked to kiss that lipstick.
We are all better off by studying how modernism operates. The pre-modernist popes did not write encyclical after encyclical about modernism because they were bored. Catholics did not pay enough heed at that time. Maybe some of us should consider doing that now.
Hear, hear, Cristero.
Thank you for your words, Cristero.
About the Holy Father’s famous phrase, I’m more with Steve on this. It’s very unfortunate and certainly something not expected from a Pope. However, if we go to the actual text of the interview and not the media reported one:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2015/january/documents/papa-francesco_20150119_srilanka-filippine-conferenza-stampa.html
We found he says translates to: “Which translates to “Some people believe that -sorry for the expression- to be a good catholic we must be like rabbits. No: responsible parenthood”
I would like to remark that “No”, which means that all that is behind it’s false. He hasn’t called any catholic mother a rabbit.
The part of the mother is quite a lot more complicated, and where I am It’s late and I need to sleep.
To understand these types of speaking of the Holy Father, this may come in handy:
http://www.catholicvote.org/3-rules-to-avoid-feeling-devastated-by-what-pope-francis-says/
Just to understand, not to celebrate, or to be happy about it or whatever.
Cheers
Another resource:
NFP: an unhappy compromise
Written in June 1948 for Integrity magazine, Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M., discusses the problems of Natural Family Planning (NFP), then known as the “Rhythm Method”. Raising Your Children; The Integrity Magazine Series.
Rhythm: the unhappy compromise
What about Rhythm? That simple question is rapidly becoming a stormcenter of controversy. It comes up during parish missions, Cana Conferences, bull sessions on careers, even high school retreats. All too often, wrong answers are given, bum theology is handed out. Even more often, right answers are given but very imprudently. These cause confusion among the laity and lead to cynical questioning. Why don’t priests get together on this thing voices that cynicism.
This article will discuss Rhythm thoroughly. First, the latest and best theological thought concerning the morality involved shall be presented. This will remove the guesswork of beauty shop theologians and gabfest experts who too easily settle everything with: “Oh, Rhythm’s okay. It’s Catholic birth control.” Secondly, we shall present the true picture of how Rhythm is currently being used around America. It is not a pretty picture, but it’s based upon wide missionary experience and thorough research. It may surprise a few too glib advocates of Rhythm — lay, cleric, religious — to see how widely astray Catholic couples have gone on this moral question. Thirdly, we shall discuss how all this fits into a full Christian life, into the synthesis of religion and life any earnest Christian must promote, if we are “to restore all things in Christ.”
http://angeluspress.org/Integrity-2-Raising-Your-Children
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/heroic-parenthood-case-against-nfp.html
Tim, I don’t even know what are we discussing. First of all, are you the Tim Tunnell I quoted before?
I suppose that, by citing that article, you don’t hold that periodic continence = contraception, am I right?
There is something I really dislike about the terms NFP, Rythm method, natural methods, etc., because, actually there is only one: periodic continence. The “methods” are just different ways of finding the fertile and sterile days.
With that in mind there are some things I disagree with the article you provided.
– “The use of Rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin”: I would say that even today, there is no official statement from the Church that says that not fulfilling the requirements makes automatically a venial or mortal sin. The closest statement to that you can find is what Pius XII said to the Conference of the Italian Catholic Union of Obstetricians in Collaboration with the National Federation of Colleges of Catholic Midwives:
“[It] can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”, he doesn’t specify if it is venial or mortal.
– “These reasons may be permanent or only temporary — poverty, poor health of the mother (real, not pretended), frequent still-births or Caesarean births, medical necessity of spacing births because of the unusual fecundity of the wife, in other words, solid and honest reasons for avoiding births for a time, or maybe for all time. But even when such honest reasons are present (and so often today they are not)[…]”: yet, once again, people trying to precise reasons where the Church hasn’t done it. Yes, of course those may be serious reasons, but never has the Church stated that those are the only ones! In fact, in the same adress to Midwives, Pius XII says: “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic economic, and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of matrimonial life”. May I call your atention to the “not rarely” part (which contradicts the opinion of Fr. Calkins) and to the different types of reasons?. He even says that they can be “personal or deriving from exterior circumstances”.
– “You see why the Holy See, only with reluctance, tolerates this method.” & “It is far more likely that Pius XI was referring to physically sterile people (“certain defects”) or those who have passed the menopause (“reasons of time”) and not the use of Rhythm”:
first, I think my quotes before refute the “with recluctance”, because not one but three times the Church stated it is morally lawful, requirements fulfilled (and I’m not even talking about with the more recent documents), and second, the last of the responses was given by Pius XII two years AFTER Casti Connubii and the answer to the question if the practice is licit was “Spouses that act this way should not be disturbed”, so it may very well also be refering to periodic continence, and even if it’s not, the response is there two years after.
There is more which I don’t agree with, but I don’t like to abuse the comment section. My apologies to Tantum if I already am.
I have adressed (at least in part) what you gave to me, Tim. Would you adress my question above? What do you think about the documents I provided?
Ask Tantrum for my email address….I give him permission to give it to you.
I suggest that you actually read Mr. Malone’s book. NFP as practiced by the vast majority is contraception. Others use drug and devices and even onanism. NFP is simply using data collection of the female’s temperature in the most private part of her body (sounds quite romantic) for the collective intellects of the spouses to have sex with the goal of not having a child “this time”. It is more clearly a premeditated decision to not be open to life than using a condom or practising onanism, which either could be used “in the heat of passion”. The intent is the same….satisfying carnal desires without the “burden” of a new life.
Get my email and we can continue this discussion if you like.
You just keep mixing everythin up and making an actual mess… “NFP as practiced by the vast majority is contraception” goes against the Church’s teaching.
Ok, if Tantum could give your email I would gladly discuss with you.