T
TimothyH
Guest
I think perhaps, that a young man should not presume to know who is holy and who is not based on age, and should remember that he too is subject to the biological solution.
-Tim-
- Status
-Tim-
K
kozlosap
Guest
C
Curious_Convert
Guest
I believe SW was implying that their errors are due to the ‘spirit’ of their generation, not to their biological age. I sure hope the anti-‘spirit of Vatican II’ (aka open & ungrounded dissent that hinders the new evangelism) will die away and be replaced by the true spirit that governed the council and its teachings. I pray that it will die away through repentance, but if it doesn’t, the ‘biological solution’ might have to suffice.
S
sw85
Guest
That is definitely the plainly obvious meaning of the words I posted.
D
DominicSavio221
Guest
I would not be too surprised if you lived in Canada, because the majority of bishops there signed the infamous Winnipeg Statement soon after the release of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The Winnipeg Statement rejects Humanae Vitae.
U
Uzziah1
Guest
I have seen the same thing 3 times. In one case, I went to confession in a new parish for the first time. One of the people who had come to greet me as a new neighbor was in the line in front of me. I said, “Why are there 10 people in line for confession with Father X, but no one in line for confession with Father Y?”Okay, so I know the official teaching regarding contraception and I agree with it. I really don’t need any explanations of what the rules are or why they are that way. Thanks]
My question is why do the priests who I seek counseling from contradict the teaching of the catechism? Out of the 7 priests that I have talked to from my archdiocese, ALL of them told me that contraception can sometimes be justified in marriage. Three have even told me that there are some situations where an individually has a moral obligation to use it for the good of their marriage! As if that wasn’t enough, the bishop from my my archdiocese (who I won’t mention so as not to scandalize) confirmed the opinion of these 7 priests, stating that there are situations where it is okay as long as the couple is open to children most of the time. Only one non-diocesan Dominican Priest has upheld the teachings of the catechism in our conversations.
How can the average lay person be expected to take this teaching seriously when so many priests and bishops don’t? How can the hierarchs above the bishops expect the lay people to take them seriously when they don’t rebuke the dissenters underneath their authority?
He smiled and said, “Oh, that’s because this is the ‘Birth Control Line.’ You can come here and confess use of contraceptives a thousand times to Father X, and he’ll give you absolution every single time. Father Y will say, ‘Your sins are retained,’ if you keep confessing it.”
When members of a Vietnamese Buddhist family who were clients were considering conversion to the Catholic faith, they asked me to speak to the pastor in advance of the meeting, to “smooth the way.”
I did. Among other things I told the pastor, “Now, Father, I know these people well. They have always used contraception – it is permitted in Buddhism to avoid excessively large families. So, they are upset with the Church’s position. But they can LIVE with it. But if they see you ‘hemming and hawing’ to minimize the Church’s position, they are going to regard you as a liar and a hypocrite, and leave. So, please, pleaqse STAND BY Humanae Vitae. DON’T lie about it. DON’T minimize its importance. DON’T ‘hem and haw.’”
A few days later I brought the couple in. The meeting was going well. Finally, the couple asked about contraception.
“Well,” the pastor answered, “That rule isn’t really important to the Church …”
“WHAT!” the wife said, “YOU ARE A LIAR! I CAN’T BELIEVE IT!” and she grabbed her husband and her child and they stomped out, never to be seen in the church again.
I just stared at the pastor and left quietly.
The truth is that most pastors are afraid that we laity are so OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of using contraceptives that if the Church engaged in a concerted effort to oppose it, the Catholic Church itself would collapse from lack of financial support.
One federally-financed study found that something like 72% of CHURCH-GOING Catholics used contraceptives, and virtually ALL of the non-church-going Catholics did.
In the Camden Diocese in New Jersey about 20 years ago they tried an experiment nicknamed “Contraception Sunday.” In writing, the Bishop commanded every single priest to publically condemn use of contraceptives at every single Mass in their homily that Sunday.
One-third of the priests simply disobeyed the bishop.
At the Masses of the other two-thirds of the priests, hundreds of people got up and walked-out of church during the homilies, and thousands upon thousands of nasty letters were written-in to the bishop, saying things like, “What happens in our bedroom is none of the Church’s business!” and “I will send the Church the bill for paying for the chilodren that will result!”
“Contraception Sunday” was never repeated.
C
Cristiano
Guest
There is not “spirit” of their generation among priests. To say so implies that the Church suddenly turned modernist and there are not a lot of solid orthodox bishops and priest that went through seminary at those times. We notice the few bad ones because it is easier to notice a black swan than a white one. If I were to follow the same logic I would say that in the past the Church was in total disarray and the seminars too because of priests that supported dictators, and I know that to be false.
S
sw85
Guest
It says neither such thing. It simply says some priests choose to align themselves with the world rather than the Church, and the proportion of priests who did so was probably greater during the silly season of the 60’s and 70’s than it is today. I don’t know how you derived those conclusions from anything anyone has said here.
M
Moore11
Guest
There could be a terminology barrier here. “birth control” and contraception are different. The use of NFP has been used as birth control licitly.Okay, so I know the official teaching regarding contraception and I agree with it. I really don’t need any explanations of what the rules are or why they are that way. Thanks
My question is why do the priests who I seek counseling from contradict the teaching of the catechism? Out of the 7 priests that I have talked to from my archdiocese, ALL of them told me that contraception can sometimes be justified in marriage. Three have even told me that there are some situations where an individually has a moral obligation to use it for the good of their marriage! As if that wasn’t enough, the bishop from my my archdiocese (who I won’t mention so as not to scandalize) confirmed the opinion of these 7 priests, stating that there are situations where it is okay as long as the couple is open to children most of the time. Only one non-diocesan Dominican Priest has upheld the teachings of the catechism in our conversations.
How can the average lay person be expected to take this teaching seriously when so many priests and bishops don’t? How can the hierarchs above the bishops expect the lay people to take them seriously when they don’t rebuke the dissenters underneath their authority?
Just my attempt at charity.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that you are just making generalized statement without any evidence just to criticize some bad behaviors. I do not consider that intellectually valid even when done in honesty. The priest that were active in the 60’s and 70’s and are not active anymore were the ones that were educated the old style, thus I would assume that the formation of priests during the 70’s, that are still active now, must have been better than the one from the previous generations. I am not making any real arguments about the quality of the priests or of the seminaries, I am just doing back of the envelope math using the assumptions from your statement.
S
sw85
Guest
It’s backed up at least in part by the words of one priest who went through seminary in the 80s (Fr. Z.). It’s not much for “evidence” but I wasn’t aware this was a courtroom. As for “generalized statements,” well, of course. No one here has a spreadsheet containing all the demographic data and personal attitudes of priests the world over. That includes you.
Your back of the envelope math has nothing to do with anything I’m saying so I don’t know what it’s supposed to be in reference to. What I am saying is that there are credible reports of madness in the seminaries in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Therefore priests who went through seminary at that time (and therefore are on the older side on average) are probably less orthodox than the ones who go through seminary now (and are therefore probably younger on average), when, I am told, the seminary silly-season has largely ended.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that this is just becoming gossip and derogatory talk by making generalizations. This is not a court of law but I think that Christian practices are still required whne talking about priests.
A
Abu
Guest
After the development of doctrine in Vatican II, and the faithful stewardship of Bl John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI. Readers should know that:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).
But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.
The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.
The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.
Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.
How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.
Just a few weeks ago, a friend called to tell me that his priest, on hearing of the appointment of a new archbishop for an archdiocese declared to him that he was “too scriptural and conservative” – this in a diocese in which the retired archbishop had to be ordered by the Vatican to remove a dissenting priest who was leading the flock astray badly.
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).
But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.
The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.
The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.
Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.
How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.
Just a few weeks ago, a friend called to tell me that his priest, on hearing of the appointment of a new archbishop for an archdiocese declared to him that he was “too scriptural and conservative” – this in a diocese in which the retired archbishop had to be ordered by the Vatican to remove a dissenting priest who was leading the flock astray badly.
S
sw85
Guest
Look, I’m not libeling anyone. I’m passing on anecdotes relayed to us by a very orthodox and well-known priest on his own blog (and who has in the past published a “seminary survival guide”). Those anecdotes explain the OP’s question: why do some priests contradict the Church’s teachings. Surely it’s not out of ignorance, therefore it must be motivated in some respect. Fr. Z.'s anecdote explains the motivation: they were formed this way.
That’s one possible explanation. Take it or leave it. No sense criticizing me because you don’t like it, for whatever reason.
C
Curious_Convert
Guest
I appreciate your answers sw85, and congratulate you on your recent baptism/confirmation!
The point here is not to bad mouth priests. I think we all know that. The point is to find out why we are in the mess we are in and to find some reason for hope that our future priests will lead the way out of it. The fact that 80% of priests in my archdiocese are unwilling to teach Catholic morality on this topic is SERIOUS, and worth talking about for the sake of souls, IMHO.
The point here is not to bad mouth priests. I think we all know that. The point is to find out why we are in the mess we are in and to find some reason for hope that our future priests will lead the way out of it. The fact that 80% of priests in my archdiocese are unwilling to teach Catholic morality on this topic is SERIOUS, and worth talking about for the sake of souls, IMHO.
M
maryj
Guest
This is exactly what I thought and no one has commented on it. Birth control and contraception are two different things. I have never heard a priest say it is ok to use contraception…NEVER!There could be a terminology barrier here. “birth control” and contraception are different. The use of NFP has been used as birth control licitly.
Just my attempt at charity.
A
Abu
Guest
That’s why I prefer Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) and it eliminates the offensive “Family Planning” tag used by the abortion/contraception lobby.
C
Curious_Convert
Guest
Okay, to clear things up, there was NO CONFUSION as to what we were talking about. Words such as ‘the pill’ and ‘condoms’ were used in all these cases, and they were contrasted with ‘NFP.’ These priests and this bishop were condoning the use of condoms/IUD/the pill/spermicide/withdrawal/whatever else you can think of. At least some said that you should stay away from the methods that prevent implantation (some forms of the pill, some IUDs, etc…)
U
Uzziah1
Guest
Priests and bishops condoning contraception to the extent that they do has a serious social consequence.
In the exraordinarily-well-researched tome, ABORTION: THE MYTHS, THE REALITIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS," author Germain Grisez points out that studies verify that “abortion follows contraception.” In other words, social popularization of contraception results in a society-wide mental habit in which fertile people seek, expect and demand sexual pleasure without reproductive consequences. When this expectation is disappointed by pregnancy – which occurs a LOT when tens of millions are having sex with that expectation – abortion is used as a birth control backstop.
In other words, IN CONTEXT, CONTRACEPTION DOESN’T STOP ABORTION – IT CAUSES IT.
So, the fact that Roe v. Wade came sveral years AFTER the 1960 approval of The Pill by the FDA is not an accident: The Pill immensely accelerated the general popularity of contraceptives, which created a risk-free-sexual-pleasure-seeking culture, which resulted in millions seeking to use abortion as a birth control backstop, which resulted in ENORMOUS demand that laws outlawing abortion be thrown out.
So, when the Church, for fear of bankrupting itself by a massive walkout of contraceptive-using Cathoilics resulting from a strict enforcement of moral rules against contraception, soft-peddles the sinfulness of contraceptive-protectred sex, it adds to the reinforcement of our culture’s contraceptive habit, which increases social demand for the murder of unwanted oiffspring while they are still in the womb.
In the exraordinarily-well-researched tome, ABORTION: THE MYTHS, THE REALITIES, AND THE ARGUMENTS," author Germain Grisez points out that studies verify that “abortion follows contraception.” In other words, social popularization of contraception results in a society-wide mental habit in which fertile people seek, expect and demand sexual pleasure without reproductive consequences. When this expectation is disappointed by pregnancy – which occurs a LOT when tens of millions are having sex with that expectation – abortion is used as a birth control backstop.
In other words, IN CONTEXT, CONTRACEPTION DOESN’T STOP ABORTION – IT CAUSES IT.
So, the fact that Roe v. Wade came sveral years AFTER the 1960 approval of The Pill by the FDA is not an accident: The Pill immensely accelerated the general popularity of contraceptives, which created a risk-free-sexual-pleasure-seeking culture, which resulted in millions seeking to use abortion as a birth control backstop, which resulted in ENORMOUS demand that laws outlawing abortion be thrown out.
So, when the Church, for fear of bankrupting itself by a massive walkout of contraceptive-using Cathoilics resulting from a strict enforcement of moral rules against contraception, soft-peddles the sinfulness of contraceptive-protectred sex, it adds to the reinforcement of our culture’s contraceptive habit, which increases social demand for the murder of unwanted oiffspring while they are still in the womb.
- Status