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: ,
comments closed

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?