As we recently celebrated the Assumption and the Queenship of Mary, I figured it would be a prime time to discuss proper devotion to the Mother of God.
Proper Devotion to the Mother of God
2 Replies
Tag Archives: tradition
Being Open to Life: An Uphill Battle
Today is the 37th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical reinforced the Church's constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent the transmission of human life. Additionally, it continued the Church's constant teaching against abortion and sterilization.
"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation�whether as an end or as a means."
-Humanae Vitae 14
Unfortunately, statistics show that 97% of Catholics use artificial contraception. If you are one of the 3% who is trying to live Church teaching and trying to find a doctor who shares your values, it can be an uphill battle. In Allegheny county, which is 69.8% Catholic, there are only 4 doctors (that I have found) who do not prescribe, perform, or refer for contraception, sterilization, abortion, or in vitro fertilization. That's right, there are only 4 physicians who live out the Church teaching on sexuality and life issues in a county that is almost 70% Catholic. That seems a little ridiculous to me. Of those 4, 2 are pediatricians, 1 is an otolaryngologist (ear, nose, and throat doctor), and 1 specializes in occupational/preventive medicine. None of them do gynecology work, not even the preventive medicine doctor. I called and asked. So, if you are a practicing Catholic woman in Allegheny county, you need to go elsewhere to find a gynecologist who shares your values.
The bulk of the reason for this lies in the lack of demand for these doctors among Catholics. Why, though, are there so few Catholics practicing this tenant of the faith? Part of the problem lies in misinformation supplied by doctors. My gynecologist told me that "Natural Family Planning is an ineffective method of contraception." However, when used properly (the same standard used to measure artificial methods of spacing children), natural family planning is 99% effective in spacing children. She wasn't talking about the rhythym method either. She spoke of the indicators and charting. However, I think the root cause is more than misinformation from doctors. If people were really interested, they could go to books to get the right information about effectiveness. The root causes are people don't know what the Church teaches, why She teaches what She does, or just don't care.
The first two problems are related; they are caused by poor catechesis, priests who lack a spine and don't want to "drive people away", and bishops who don't shepherd the flock. Personally, although I grew up Catholic, I didn't understand the Church's teaching until college. I remember learning there was a Church rule against birth control. I didn't have the impression that that the rule was still followed or "enforced". I never even knew that natural family planning existed, nor did I know that there were requirements for its use to be just. I think I had a pretty typical experience in this regard. I grew up in your average parish, attended Mass on Sunday and all Holy Days of Obligation, went to Catholic school and CCD during public high school. It was only through an orthodox Newman center that is very effective at catechesis that I learned the Church's teaching on sexuality and Her reason for it. Why didn't my parents, who are supposed to be my primary catechists, mention it? Why did I not learn this in catechism class? Why had I never heard about it in a homily? The first time I ever heard the Church's teaching on contraception mentioned in a homily, I was in Denver and Mass was being celebrated by Archbishop Chaput. He is very much the exception to the rule, though. In my experience, there are very few priests who have the spine to talk about such a controversial issue in a Sunday homily. Where are the bishops? Why are more bishops not talking about it? Why are the bishops not encouraging their priests to talk about the issue?
The causes of the third problem, apathy, are different, but related. We live in a society of materialism and relativism. BMW's are more important than babies, profits more important than people. There is a lack of respect for Truth. "Whatever you want to believe is good enough for you as long as it doesn't affect me." seems to be the prevalent attitude. How can we progress to a society where people are more important than things if we don't have a standard, if we don't respect Truth? It is as Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:
"Akin to these is the false theory of progress, which maintains that we alter the test instead of trying to pass the test. We often hear it said, for instance, 'What is right in one age is wrong in another.' This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a fixed aim, and that certain methods attain at certain times and not at other times. If women, say, desire to be elegant, it may be that they are improved at one time by growing fatter and at another time by growing thinner. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. If the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard?"
Now that we see the darkness of our society, it is time for each of us to be the "light of the world". (cf. Matthew 5:14) It is time for each of us to confront these problems, to raise awareness and understanding of Church teaching which will lead to demand for pro-life doctors. Each of us can aid in the solution of these problems. After learning the Church teaching ourselves, we can catechize our friends and family and dispel the misconceptions among those we meet. Parents can take responsibility for catechesis of their children. We can also support those who are open to life and have larger than average families who get criticized by society at large. Additionally, it is important for us to encourage our priests to speak out about the issue. Many times, unfortunately, the Sunday homily is the average Catholic's only catechesis for the week. It is important that moral issues which affect daily life, such as this one, are covered. We can also confront our bishops and ask them to shepherd their flock, both by speaking out about Church teaching themselves and encouraging their priests to do the same. I'm not talking about lip service, heresy, or wishy washy statements, either, but real catechesis and real Truth. We can live in such a way that shows we live the value that people are more important than things by sharing our time, talent, and treasure with those less fortunate than ourselves. We need to walk the walk AND talk the talk. Our lives and our lips need to speak the unadulterated, uncompromising Truth. The Truth, which this world is starving for, is the only answer to these problems. As Pope John Paul II said:
"If you want peace, work for justice; if you want justice, defend life; if you want life, embrace the Truth, the Truth revealed by God."
[BTW, July 24-30 is Natural Family PLanning Awareness Week. – Funky]
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." – 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
This verse seems to be a favorite among Evangelicals. It's an essential part of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. It occurred to me yesterday that sola sciptura has not only the exegetical and hermeneutical consequences, with which most are already familiar, but also ecclesiological.
If there is a right way of dividing the Word, i.e. handling (RSV) or imparting without deviation (NAB), there must also be a wrong way (or several wrong ways). Obviously, Protestants do not believe that Catholics rightly divide the Word. We reject sola scriptura. In their eyes, that doctrine is essential to correct interpretation.
So I find myself wondering whose version of "scripture interpreting scripture" is to be believed? If sola scriptura is so right, shouldn't there be a single obvious Protestant counterpart to the Catholic Church? Why are there so many competing denominations today? Why are there thousands of new groups appearing every year? Shouldn't there be only one right division of the Word?
One of the key problems with sola scriptura is that it robs Protestants of a proper sense of ecclesiology. They have no unified Church to maintain and protect the Deposit of Faith. When only scripture can interpret scripture, there can be no authoritative external interpretation. For Catholics and Orthodox, this external authority is Sacred Tradition. It's what helps the Church maintain unity and orthodoxy. Heresy is relatively easy to identify and counter.
Protestants have no such authority to which they can appeal. One denominations's heresy is another's doctrine. Don't like what you're hearing? Find another place to hang your hat. Don't like any group you've tried? Start your own.
Why is sola scriptura a bad doctrine? By its fruits you will know it. One of those fruits is division in the Body of Christ.
Habemus Papam!
Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Carninal Joseph Ratzinger said the following in a homily.
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards."
"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."
Compare this to John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (101).
"In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost – all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States. When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world – Marxism being the foremost of these – there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, ‘if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism’"
"Thus, in every sphere of personal, family, social and political life, morality – founded upon truth and open in truth to authentic freedom – renders a primordial, indispensable and immensely valuable service not only for the individual person and his growth in the good, but also for society and its genuine development."
As William Donahue said, "The Catholic League is delighted. Those who are not need to do some real soul searching.". Amen. Long live the pope!
Aged Like a Fine Wine or Spoiled Like Old Milk?
Sean, an agnostic friend of mine asked me to post the following multi-part question.
"How old does something have to be to be considered traditional/conservative?"
"Abraham Lincoln is considered a conservative because he wanted to preserve the Union as it had been for the first 75 years of our country. To me 75 years (which also is about 1 lifetime) makes a good rule of thumb. When something has been around 75 years, virtually no one alive has ever experienced life without it, whatever it is."
"More food for thought:
Watching football on thanksgiving is considered a tradition, but television has only been around for 50 or so years. Christianity is generally thought of as conservative, but 2000 years ago it was a radical idea. So again I ask, how old does something have to be to be considered conservative?"
It’s an interesting question and one worth answering well. My only quibble would be the equation of "traditional" to "conservative". Within the context of Christianity, particularly Catholicism, tradition often correlates poorly with the political spectrum. A better choice would be orthodox versus progressive. However, even those are dificult to apply broadly because different groups define each differently and will not always consider them mutually exclusive. That, in my opinion, is one of the greatest strengths of the Catholic Church. Right or wrong, for better or for worse, whatever the Church deems official teaching is ground truth for orthodoxy, like it or not.
So what do you folks think?