Attacking Richard Gaillardetz: What Exactly is the Goal Here?
The Internet’s self-appointed defenders of orthodoxy have recently caused a great stir about the fact that Dr. Richard Gaillardetz will be addressing the Canadian bishops at their upcoming plenary assembly.
The suggestion is that Gaillardetz is a dissenting theologian and, as such, should not be permitted to address the bishops. His critics point to his published work related especially to the questions of women’s ordination and the role of conscience in the decision to use or not use artificial contraception. (They are also furious about his support of Barack Obama.)
In response to the accusations, Gaillardetz has written a letter to the bishops defending himself. I will let the readers draw their own conclusions about Gaillardetz’s orthodoxy from the letter and the coverage. I have no desire to debate his orthodoxy here.
What I do want to ask is, “What on earth do Lifesitenews and Socon hope to achieve with this campaign?”
Whether or not Richard Gaillardetz is among them, there are, presumably, dissenting theologians working in the Church today. Groups like Lifesitenews and Socon believe that their shenanigans must be brought to a quick end. Now, since neither LSN nor Socon has any control over who gets hired at a university and who gets to publish books and articles, they must rely on someone else to impose some kind of sanction on the troublemakers they sniff out. And, really, there is only one group in the Church with that kind of power. That’s right; it’s the bishops.
So, what must LSN, Socon, and other like-minded Catholics do in order that dissenting theologians be brought to heel? They must ensure that such theologians and their teachings are made known to the bishops. If they’re really lucky, they may even be able to achieve a meeting between the bishops and the theologian in question. Never in their wildest dreams could these self-appointed defenders of orthodoxy expect to get the theologian in question to present to dozens and dozens of bishops.
But this is exactly what s going to happen this month in Cornwall, Ontario. Richard Gaillardetz will present his theology of the ordained ministry, one of the areas, recall, where his orthodoxy is being questioned, to a whole conference of bishops. At least some of those bishops should be able to detect heresy if it is present.
So what are LSN and Socon so upset about? Two things come to mind. 1. They do not trust that a roomful of bishops is more competent than they themselves are at recognizing the authentic teachings of the Church. 2. They are less interested in the truth about what Richard Gaillardetz has to say than in ‘winning’ another battle in the culture wars.
Both of these possibilities, I believe, say more about LSN and Socon than about Richard Gaillardetz.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
“What on earth do Lifesitenews and Socon hope to achieve with this campaign?”
Perhaps the same thing some bloggers hope to achieve: to stir the pot and make one side or the other look bad.
LifeSiteNews has a history of character assassination; the problem is, most people have not studied Gaillardetz’s writings, so it is easy to take things out of context and present him as someone he is not…
1. They do not trust that a roomful of bishops is more competent than they themselves are at recognizing the authentic teachings of the Church.
Like the Canidian Bishops who rejected Humanae Vitae with the result the Catholic Church in Canada is now pretty much a joke.
I just finished taking notes on Gaillardetz’s ecclesiology, including his theology of episcopacy, about 5 minutes ago. His book Ecclesiology for a Global Church is fantastic.
I think these groups are turned on by character assassination. They are proving to be utter failures at their proclaimed missions that all they can do now is pick on supposed “dissenters.” If only they could see how they are embarrassing themselves.
His letter to the Canadian bishops was well done.
That’s right. A room full of bishops who do not reject the Winnipeg Statement is not more competent than educated and faithful lay Catholics in determining what is or is not orthodox.
The issue isn’t just out and out heresy. It’s the modus operandi of the Church that neglects to speak Catholic teaching plainly, and to reject error plainly.
Barack Obama is anti-egalitarian. He rejects the equality of the unborn. From a Catholic perspective, that puts him on the same level as racists and other people who discriminate. The worse part is that the form of discrimination he supports is lethal for the most weakest members of society.
They are also furious about his support of Barack Obama.
That hits the nail on the head. Among a certain set of American Catholics, theological orthodoxy is indistinguishable from loyalty to a certain political movement. How many times has Vox Nove been dubbed “dissenting” on these grounds? I think these people are best ignored.
The depths of the absurdity of these people’s critique of Gaillardetz are well represented in these two criticisms:
p. 2. (and elsewhere in the book) Gaillardetz uses C.E. (common era) instead of A.D.
…
p. 7. (and elsewhere) Gaillardetz shows an unwillingness to speak of God as “He.”
“p. 2. (and elsewhere in the book) Gaillardetz uses C.E. (common era) instead of A.D.
p. 7. (and elsewhere) Gaillardetz shows an unwillingness to speak of God as “He.””
But..but…he has a beard !
It shows how far we’ve advanced, this kind of stuff would have gotten him burned, by church and state. But the mentality is still around. As Jan Hus is said to have exclaimed as an old lady put wood on “his” fire, “Sancta simplicitas!”
I think these witch hunters are just sad that nowadays “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
The Canadian bishops have a poor record of leadership in defending the institution of marriage over the past 40 years. In particular, their promotion of the encyclical Humanae Vitae has been substantially invisible and the results of this infidelity are now increasingly evident.
My understanding of the reports in Socon and Lifesite is that their concern is with the judgment of the bishops in offering at this time a platform and its associated prestige and credibility to anyone who is associated with dissident views when there is such an overwhelming need to promote authentic values and teaching.
Moreover, they have not engaged in character assassination – that implies the use of untruths and innuendo. They have engaged in character identification based on publication records. Mr. Iafrate would be more convincing if he would identify specific errors in their characterization of Dr. Gaillardetz than focus on the alleged non-importance of pronouns and date conventions.
I suspect it is all about his support for the President.
Two things:
First, I would never have called Barack Obama ‘pro-life’ as Gaillardetz did. Nevertheless, I don’t think it has anything whatsoever to do with dissent. To call it such totally misunderstands Church teaching on the relationship of the faithful to the magisterium and the political order.
Second, virtually every bishop responsible for the Winnipeg statement is dead. Virtually every Canadian bishop is a supporter of Humanae Vitae. To say that the CCCB has not rejected the Winnipeg Statement is like saying the Vatican has not rejected Pascendi. The Church simply doesn’t retract official statements. (Though sometimes I think that would be useful.) They simply hope they will go away (to be explained at some point in the future as historically conditioned), occasionally producing new documents which reject the previous ones without naming them.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092909.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092903.html
Oddly enough it is usually liberals who are concerned with this MO and conservatives who support it.
The 2008 Pastoral Letter – issued 40 years after the Papal Encyclical – is good – better late than never. But from my “man-in-the-pew” perspective, that was as far as the initiative went. I didn’t find it distributed in Parish Newsletters or pinned on noticeboards; neither did I hear any homilies based on it. Leadership requires more than issuing a letter.
Dave K. – Are the bishops giving Gaillardetz a “platform”? Really? Are these the same talking points ya’ll received during the Obama/ND “crisis”?
Michael J. Whilst I absorb various views and analyses, please be assured that I take full responsibility for the strengths and weaknesses of anything I write – I do not operate from the talking points of any faction.
I wish contributors to this site would spend less time attributing sinful motives to people and more time giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Could it possibly be that they do not have evil intentions and maybe they are just speaking impetuously? Perhaps they speak out of zealous concern with fidelity to the Church, which is another way of saying they are concerned with sanctity? Which is another way of saying these people are concerned with other people’s souls?
Zach,
The Pharisees were certainly interested in the souls of other people as well… the problem for me is LifeSiteNews is an ideological site, and its interests are not one and the same as “pro life” interests. Why, for example, would they have all kinds of things against Harry Potter, if it merely is a pro-life site?
Zach: fair enough. No one has the right or the ability to pass judgment on another’s motives. Nonetheless, it is possible to be overzealous even in the service of a worthy cause (as Cardinal O’Malley and Father Rosica highlighted quite eloquently in the wake of the Kennedy funeral), and the Bishops, though not infallible, ARE entitled to a certain amount of deference.
Dave – Good to hear. I’m still not sure that the bishops are giving him a “platform.”
Zach – I’m not sure if you are referring to me when you say “contributors.” Could you be more direct? On the point you made, sure, you can spin it as “concern with fidelity to the church,” “sanctity,” etc. All of those things are good things indeed. The question in this case is whether it represents a true pursuit of those things, or whether the heresy-hunting mentality of these people is pathological. Note that pathologies are not necessarily intentional and/or sinful.
Zach,
I don’t think I attributed sinful motives to anyone. I tried, rather, to highlight the dangers and incongruities which sometimes come from speaking, as you say, impetuously.
Good intentions do not good actions make. They certainly are concerned with people’s souls. My concern is that the way they go about their business is actually counter-productive.
After their treatment of Dr. Gailardetz (and anyone else who disagrees with them) it even strikes me as a bit ironic to suggest those who question LSN and Socon need to give people the benefit of the doubt. The suggestion of evil intentions that accompanies so many of their pieces is part of the problem I am trying to highlight.
May St. Ignatius Loyola help us all.
After their treatment of Dr. Gailardetz (and anyone else who disagrees with them) it even strikes me as a bit ironic to suggest those who question LSN and Socon need to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Yes.
So what are LSN and Socon so upset about? Two things come to mind. 1. They do not trust that a roomful of bishops is more competent than they themselves are at recognizing the authentic teachings of the Church. 2. They are less interested in the truth about what Richard Gaillardetz has to say than in ‘winning’ another battle in the culture wars.
I suspect it is this paragraph that led to the suggestion I was attributing evil motives. For what it’s worth, what I see myself doing in this paragraph is pointing out two presuppositions that are not good or evil, but correct or incorrect. It is the combination of what I take to be incorrect presuppositions with (good in itself) zeal for the salvation of souls that leads to work that, in my view, compromises the witness of the Church.
That the first of these is a presupposition is obvious; that the second is, less so. The presupposition I hoped to highlight in it was a practical one and it consists in the approach that insists that anyone who disagrees on any point is to be labeled anti-life and condemned as heretical, dissident, non-Catholic etc. When this approach is taken, truth often ends up in the back seat while the need for victory rides shotgun, regardless of the presence of good motives.
Dave K, you said it well when you called this occasion a “platform”. The article implies that there is little difference between speaking before bishops in a plenary assembly and speaking before them assembled as a review board. One indicates approval; the other, the opposite. The letter reveals as much: people don’t defend their right to appear before a grilling.
“it even strikes me as a bit ironic to suggest those who question LSN and Socon need to give people the benefit of the doubt”
It’s ironic in the way that the Gospel is ironic. The Gospel mandate is to love our enemies, including, from your point of view, these people who criticize Dr. Gailardetz. Loving your enemy, in this case, takes the form of giving them the benefit of the doubt, by which I meant employing intellectual humility in criticism. It’s hard to do, certainly, but I think it’s what we are called to as Catholics conversing about public life.
Also, I think generally the priorities of this article are a bit out of whack. Life Site News is the problem? This is what is wrong with the world today? Aren’t there more important things we need to deal with?
Also, I think generally the priorities of this article are a bit out of whack. Life Site News is the problem? This is what is wrong with the world today? Aren’t there more important things we need to deal with?
To me, at least, helping to purify the pro-life cause so that it can have an impact on the broader culture is one of the most important things a Catholic can do. Being concerned about LSN does not, as they insist, make one an agent of the culture of death. There are many people, including faithful LSN readers (I am one) and, I am learning, even contributors, who think that things need to change around there. Many were embarrassed by the handling of the Rosica incident, for instance.
Pinky,
Of course there is a difference between a plenary assembly and a review board. Still, just because bishops are gathered in plenary assembly does not mean their approach becomes totally uncritical.
The approval/disapproval either/or binary does not resemble a ‘c’atholic sensibility. That is not a “you’re not Catholic” comment. It is a comment about sensibility.
Pinky writes:
you said it well when you called this occasion a “platform”…speaking before bishops in a plenary assembly … indicates approval
I think a good many of our conservative brothers are so devoted to the beauty of the Mass, that they see every action of the Church as liturgical.
I would offer that from my poor liberal point of view, one can’t approve of an address until after one has heard it. The plenary session is not a ritual act — performing a ceremony with the parts already written out in a Sacramentary. The bishops have invited an interesting speaker.
This reminds me of a discussion on another forum where one of my conservative brethren in the faith insisted it was wrong for the laity to attempt to advise the Pope and bishops. When faced with the reality of the canonical right of the lay faithful to do so, he partially retracted by proclaiming “Okay, laymen might advise the hierarchy, but it only when it is advice they agree with.”
Note the quote marks. That is not a paraphrase!!!
The blogosphere’s reaction to Gaillardetz is very simple. The guy dissents against Church teaching and the faithful are no longer willing to put up with clergy who don’t uphold the teachings of the Church. If the bishops won’t teach the Truth, the faithful will bypass them and look directly to Rome for teaching.
If you are a liberal Catholic, then you obviously will have difficulty grasping what’s happening because you agree with the dissenting views of the bishops. That’s your choice. But don’t blame orthodox Catholics for wanting to remain true to the teachings that Christ gave 2,000 years ago.
Steve – The view you are expressing is a modern one. It has little to do with Christ’s teaching or with the structures of church leadership that we believe Christ instituted. In fact, your view ignores much of the structure that we believe Christ instituted. It certainly does not reflect the ecclesiology or understanding of church authority held by the Church Fathers. Or of the church of today, or Pope Benedict for that matter.
I also would not call Obama pro-life, but he probably has greater claim to that title than any of the prominent Republicans kissed by the “official pro-lifer” movement.
The Gospel mandate is to love our enemies, including, from your point of view, these people who criticize Dr. Gailardetz. Loving your enemy, in this case, takes the form of giving them the benefit of the doubt, by which I meant employing intellectual humility in criticism. It’s hard to do, certainly, but I think it’s what we are called to as Catholics conversing about public life.
I actually agree with this very strongly. It can, nevertheless, be tough to tell if one (or, maybe especially, the people with whom one disagrees) actually does exercise intellectual humility. The whole thing gets very convoluted when one is concerned about the lack of intellectual humility in those one is criticizing. Regardless, if the above piece fails in intellectual humility, I am sorry. Though writing about such topics ensures one’s share of criticisms of the ‘pot calling the kettle black’ variety (and they are by no means all valid just for being made), I will take Zach’s critique into account before I write on this again.
Steve,
I am not a liberal Catholic, and I don’t agree with any ‘dissenting views of the bishops.’ My concern is that people with no recognizable credentials or authority feel that they are entitled to determine Dr. Gaillardetz’s orthodoxy. They speak as if his dissent is simply self-evident. It seems to me that the fact that the bishop’s don’t agree with this assessment should give them pause. Instead it evokes claims that the bishops themselves are dissenting. This strikes me as irresponsible at best.
I suggest to brettsalkeld that anyone without recognizable credentials or authority should hesitate or refrain from judging the merit of any unorthodoxy.
However, it takes no authority or special training other than the ability to comprehend and reason, to merely distinguish between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy.
Concerning the Canadian bishops, they have led us through the wilderness for 40 years. It will take time to rebuild that trust to which they would normally be entitled. Recent events suggest that this process has a long way to go.
I suggest to brettsalkeld that anyone without recognizable credentials or authority should hesitate or refrain from judging the merit of any unorthodoxy.
I’m not sure I know what this sentence means. Can you clarify?
However, it takes no authority or special training other than the ability to comprehend and reason, to merely distinguish between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy.
So anyone who disagrees with John Pacheco’s analysis lacks the ability to comprehend and reason? Does this include the bishops? The few I know are quite able in this regard. The suggestion that anyone who sees things differently from you lacks the ability to comprehend and reason is actually quite dangerous and terribly oversimplified. Maybe there’s a little more to this than simply two groups in the Church, one of which is able to reason and one of which, the one that includes the bishops, is not.
Some of my friend here are defending Dr. Gaillardetz’ perfect orthodoxy. That is not a difficult task as the facts are overwhelming and clearly on their side.
But it still by-passes the real question — by inviting him to speak, the bishops are saying nothing more than they expect he will have something they will find useful to hear in his address. They are not endorsing or commenting on everything the man has ever written or said. Any even those who allow the use of contraception or the ordaination of women, still might have something beneficial to say on some topic.
Consertativism need not mean closed-mindedness, but some really work hard at creating that impression.
Brettsalkeld, I have no cause to believe that you or the bishops lack the ability to comprehend and reason and I have not suggested otherwise. My point is that this ability is generally sufficient to distinguish between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy.
The divide in the church is between those who see merit in the unorthodoxy and those who don’t. And that judgment requires authority.
Dave K,
I am a bit confused. If some think Gaillardetz is dissenting and some others think he is not, and all that is necessary to discern the difference is comprehension and reason, how can both sides be using reason? (I ask this honestly, not rhetorically.)
Also, I am still unclear what you mean by ‘seeing merit in unorthodoxy’ and the authority required for this. Could you maybe give an example?
The problem will occur again and again as long as Rome does not try to add clarity to this phenomenon called the ordinary magisterium (potentially incorrect/see Ott/ Intro to Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma just prior to section 9) whose infallible smaller subset is the universal ordinary magisterium.
All fights including this one are about one group holding an issue like birth control to be infallibly settled with the other groups saying not so and with Popes often silent so that each group thinks the Pope is on their side.
Some theologians say birth control is universal ordinary magisterium and thus infallible (Grisez/Lio/John C Ford) and others like Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring said it was not infallible as to being universal ordinary magisterium but was only ordinary magisterium because inter alia a common consensus broke down for decades of both bishops and theologians so that Tuas Libenter’s
(1863 Pius IX letter to Bishops of Munich) standard of common consensus of Catholic theologians as a sign (not requirement) of infallibility is not met.
To make matters less clear, Humanae Vitae was introduced at its Vatican press conference as non infallible twice stated by Monseignor Lambrushini.
To make matters less clear still, the 100 dissenters to Humane Vitae at Catholic University of America in 1968 were first punished severely by their Bishop/ protested to Rome/ and Rome rescinded the punishment and only required that they sign statements that Humanae Vitae was authentic Church teaching which they did because such does not imply infallibility.
To make matters less clear again, since 1968 no Pope has applied much effort to notice the controversy and respond by an ex cathedra encyclical whose purpose is to settle controversy around the ordinary magisterium’s issues. I suspect John Paul II tried to settle it when he polled the world’s bishops and got their consensus on abortion and euthanasia which he then infallibly settled in Evangelium Vitae on those two issues but if I am correct that he tried also on contraception which he included in EV, then some and a substantial number of the Bishops told him no on birth control being infallibly settled in the ordinary magisterium. When a Pope does not get such consensus, he can still use the ex cathedra route but he did not and there is no sign that Benedict is even thinking about it but rather is working on a book.
Gaillardetz is correct per even the most conservative theology tomes about the right of the Catholic conscience when an issue is as yet non infallible: a Catholic may have a struggled dissent typified by prayer, counsel and further study.
Quikie dissent is out of the question. Pacheco seems oblivious to this because he may only be aware of Lumen Gentium 25 and not aware that moral theology tomes (even Grisez/”Christian Moral Principles”/pages 850-854) supplement the incomplete “religious submission” clause of Lumen Gentium 25. Ironic that Grisez wrote it as he had to since he personally thought the issue infallible// it is an almost unknown tradition (the right of conscience when infallibility is not clear…despite LG 25) thanks to clericalism and one sees that at the sites that are most hot about these things. They are lacking a dogmatic piece of the puzzle which a Popes should step up and instruct them on or that same Pope should not allow imprimaturs to moral theology tomes that expand on LG 25 as to the rights of conscience which also the catechism does not address but only touches on the circular path of the conscience dominated by sin which must recurringly read until it agrees with Rome on an issue (the clericalism version of conscience rather than the one in imprimatured moral theology tomes).
brettsalkeld – that is a logical and fair question.
In our Canadian church that is divided, we have two parties who believe differently – but both parties believe that they are “orthodox” in the sense of “right”. The schism is not all about LSN and Pacheco, but comprises bishops, priests and laity. So we have different definitions of orthodoxy. It’s a mess that should in principle be resolved from the top with the authority of the Pope.
What we should not do is keep silent and preserve a false facade of unity. The New Testament includes some dire warnings against those who mislead with false teaching. And both parties cannot be right.
At some point, a significant chunk of the church in Canada must either revise its beliefs or secede. The current dissension is clearly not inspired by God.
OK Dave, I am getting clearer on what you mean.
There are different ideas around about what constitutes an orthodox response to a particular question and you would like the Pope to let us know which is legit.
Am I close?
Could you spell out what your two orthodoxies think of the two issues at hand (namely the ordination of women and the role of conscience in the choice to use or not use artificial contraception)? I was going to try spell them out as part of my attempt to understand your point, but the effort made me realize that I am not sure exactly how you would articulate these and I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Dave K – I encourage you to check out the post I made today on this blog on what Fr. Ghislain Lafont calls the “pathology of the truth.”
Also, I would take issue with the idea that there are merely two versions of what “orthodoxy” looks like, in Canada or elsewhere.
brettsalkeld – I like to keep my posts short – so this is a challenge. I am not well briefed on the womens’ ordination issue and must pass on that. But I will happily address the artificial contraception issue.
Firstly, I don’t see a requirement to ask the Pope for another ruling here. We have had clear guidance both from Paul VI and JPII on this matter. But we have seen widespread infidelity on the part of our bishops who have generally not vigorously promoted the good news.
My wife and I were fortunate to have had a Serena presentation back in 1980. We practiced NFP during our fertile years and taught it to many others, including those of other faith groups and of no faith group.
I currently lead research and development work at a biomedical corporation. I relate that to indicate that I have a grasp of human physiology and statistics.
The bottom line is that in my personal and scientific judgment, married life using NFP has enormous advantages over that based on the oral contraceptive pill. It is effective, healthy, without undesirable short or long term side effects, inexpensive and brings a lifestyle of mutual consideration and joy.
Admittedly, this endorsement could not have been given in 1968 when NFP was in its infancy. This fact indicates the impressive prophetic nature of Humanae Vitae that was largely constructed on philosophical and ethical considerations.
Anyone who suggests to young couples that they should ideally use NFP but nudge nudge wink wink use artificial contraception if their conscience demands it is putting their health and happiness at risk and is out of touch with the huge body of knowledge that now surrounds both NFP and the contraceptive pill.
Lest anyone should suppose that NFP is merely natural contraception, I should emphasize that it is a holistic marital lifestyle. It is equally effective at optimizing the probability of conception – better and much cheaper than IVF.
Finally, a word about the exhortation to have as many children as possible subject to health and financial considerations. With a fertility rate of 1.5, well below the break-even number of 2.1, our society is dying out and becoming overburdened with the aged. A large family is hard work and requires some compromises – but as we move towards retirement, we take enormous satisfaction at watching our larger family grow with the onset of beautiful grandchildren.
I would simply like to say how much I have appreciated the thoughtful and largely charitable debate on this thread regarding the lamentable controversy associated with my upcoming address to the bishops of your country. And for what it is worth, While I do not regret my support of President Obama, I do regret the flippant suggestion that he is pro-life. In the Oped piece in which I made that statement I was referring to a broad range of social policies. I have consistently opposed President Obama’s position on abortion.
Rick
The permission in imprimatured moral theology tomes (even Grisez’s “Way of the Lord Jesus” vol.1) for sincere dissenting conscience in the not yet infallible is a permission unknown to the many self educated Catholic writers on the net many of whom are converts or reverts with few if any theology credits in university. And even in Catholic colleges, it may not be brought up but is hidden in moral theology tomes that no one examines. This non knowledge of this one point will cause trouble until the Church (read Rome)deliberately makes it more well known. But that would mean trusting human laity. By not trusting them, Rome ended up with the smallest perecentage of obedience that probably any issue ever received.
Dave K. writes, “At some point, a significant chunk of the church in Canada must either revise its beliefs or secede.”
A wise sage once said, “In America, even the Catholics are Protestants.” Apparently this applies to Canada as well as the U.S.
Dave K,
Thank you for your lengthy comment. I’m not sure you have read my other posts on the topic, but I am also a big proponent of NFP. I hesitate, though, to make it sound too much like rainbows and lollipops since my wife and I have experienced severe difficulties due to our decision to follow the Church in this area. Sometimes NFP is a cross. But perhaps that’s for another post.
In any case, from your post I take this paragraph to be the one where you describe the second view of what orthodox looks like:
Anyone who suggests to young couples that they should ideally use NFP but nudge nudge wink wink use artificial contraception if their conscience demands it is putting their health and happiness at risk and is out of touch with the huge body of knowledge that now surrounds both NFP and the contraceptive pill.
Have I read you correctly?
If that is how you view Rick Gaillardetz and those supporting him, I suggest that you might not have read his work very carefully. Even though in my own book I draw a slightly harder line than Gaillardetz regarding conscience, I do not get the sense that he was being at all flippant in his discussion of this topic.
Rick,
Thank you. We are making a renewed effort here at Vox Nova to have our little corner of the blogosphere Catholic not simply in content, but in praxis.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/09/22/an-apology-from-vox-nova-and-a-new-comment-policy/
My concern is that we have so much time and effort expended within the Church in exploring the role of conscience – primarily directed to resisting Humanae Vitae – and so little time promoting its core messages. The Canadian bishops could have sent a powerful message if they had invited to address them one of the many well-informed and articulate experts on NFP.
brettsalkeld, I didn’t intend to present the impression that the use of NFP will result in a life free from difficulties and challenges. What I did intend to convey is that dependence on drugs, surgery or mechanical aids is a greatly inferior choice.
Very fine pieces by Bill Bannon here.
The real tragedy of Humanae Vitae is that it has kept Catholics chattering about a dill-and-cummin issue for 40 years, while neglecting justice and mercy and faith.
What I did intend to convey is that dependence on drugs, surgery or mechanical aids is a greatly inferior choice.
Agreed.
My concern is that we have so much time and effort expended within the Church in exploring the role of conscience – primarily directed to resisting Humanae Vitae – and so little time promoting its core messages.
My concern, is actually kind of the opposite. The failure of the Winnipeg statement was not its emphasis on conscience, but its lack of reflection about the role of conscience. Given the lack of understanding of conscience current among the laity, telling them to follow their conscience amounts to telling them: “If it feels good, do it.”
I do agree that there has been, until recently, very little work promoting what you call its ‘core messages.’
The Canadian bishops could have sent a powerful message if they had invited to address them one of the many well-informed and articulate experts on NFP.
At an internal meeting, I doubt the bishops are concerned about “sending a message.” But had they wanted to “send a message,” they could have “sent a powerful message” about just about any topic in the world. Funny how we always think our pet issue is the most important. The topic of Gaillardetz’s talk makes sense given the event and the audience.
The question is the audience. I don’t fault the Canadian bishops for not scheduling a lecture on NFP. To be quite honest, I can’t say the better Sunday sermons I’ve heard include those by priests telling me in great detail all sorts of things about cervical mucus.
Spirit of Vatican II,
Thank you. Dill and cummin…. I often picture all of us on both sides of this issue being shown at the last judgement how we all speeded our cars miles above the speed limit in residential areas of our counties where children play while we all waxed eloquent in our minds on this issue as we speeded down the roadways.
“At some point, a significant chunk of the church in Canada must either revise its beliefs or secede. The current dissension is clearly not inspired by God.”
Orthodoxy is not a hard line. It’s a spectrum. It’s precisely the opposing pressure between left and right that allow us to narrow in on the truth. A bird with only one wing flies in circles.
Michael J., as shepherds of the flock, bishops should always be concerned about sending messages, either through their actions or lack of them.
Spirit of Vatican II, Humanae Vitae was not a tragedy but a highly insightful piece of analysis, guidance and prediction. The tragedy has been its substantial rejection by the “faithful”.
As a consequence we see an epidemic of failed marriages and a growing shortage of human capital to staff the priesthood, the hospitals, the missions, look after the aged, and generally attend to works of justice and mercy.
To perceive this as a “dill-and-cummin” issue takes a particular effort of intellectual gymnastics. Without strong and healthy families, we are going nowhere.
The Canadian bishops could have sent a powerful message if they had invited to address them one of the many well-informed and articulate experts on NFP.
I don’t know who spoke to the bishops last year or the year before and I probably won’t hear anything about who is going to speak to them next year. I think the ‘platform’ idea is a bit overblown. Inviting an expert on the ordained ministry in the year designated “Year of the Priest” by Pope Benedict seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Michael J., as shepherds of the flock, bishops should always be concerned about sending messages, either through their actions or lack of them.
Not everything a bishop does “sends a message.” I would likely commit suicide if I were a bishop and had to live up to that kind of pathological scrutiny.
Dave K, of course Humanae Vitae as a text contains many good things, and is in fact perhaps the best written Encyclical of all time. But the tragedy lies in the practical ruling that it ends with. Had that ruling been softened along the lines of the Episcopal Conferences and Paul VI itself things might have not gone on too badly, but John Paul II ratcheted it up and blind adherence to it has become the litmus test of orthodoxy and episcopal appointments. Only those who have practiced the teaching of the Encyclical by using only NFP within marriage have a convincing locus standi for acclaiming it.
Spirit of Vatican II
One of the problems of Humanae Vitae was that the secular press at the time like Time and Newsweek were giving a running account of the bizarre ideas of the saints on sex. Catholics then had two sources: the Pope and the press…and then those Catholics wondered why the Pope was leaving out the dark side of the tradition. It was very much like Pope Leo XIII writing to the Brazilian bishops about the Church fighting slavery for centuries and never mentioning the series of Popes from 1452 til 1511 who turbo charged slavery for Portugal and Spain that resulted in Brazil itself being a country with problems to this day.
Rome leaves out the darker aspects of Church history and when Catholics find it out on their own, credibility dies.
Here is Jerome in “Against Jovinianus” Book 1 section 20
“The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean.”
___________________________________________________
Here is Augustine saying that parents have sex in private because its acts are shameful…(William F. Buckley had a better idea and said that we also keep private that which is valuable)…but to Augustine:
“Marriage and Concupiscence”
Chapter 14 “For why is the especial work of parents withdrawn and hidden even from the eyes of their children, except that it is impossible for them to be occupied in laudable procreation without shameful lust?”
————————————————–
Both men by the way saw having multiple children as a Jewish thing not a Christian thing since God wanted the Jews to multiply and thus survive so as to produce the Messiah. Once that was done, Christians need not have many children:
Jerome in the same book as above:
Section 48
“Shall a joint-heir of Christ really long for human heirs? And shall he desire children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that Moses and Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God?”
prior section
47
“Then again, to marry for the sake of children, so that our name may not perish, or that we may have support in old age, and leave our property without dispute, is the height of stupidity.”
_________________________________________________
Augustine:
The Good of Marriage section 9 (the Jews needed to propagate…we do not): ” Whence we gather, that, in the first times of the human race, chiefly for the propagation of the People of God, through whom the Prince and Saviour of all people should both be prophesied of, and be born, it was the duty of the Saints to use this good of marriage, not as to be sought for its own sake, but necessary for the sake of something else: but now, whereas, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship, there is on all sides from out all nations an overflowing fullness of spiritual kindred, even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence.”
_________________________________________________
The key idea of Humanae Vitae by the way is traceable to Augustine who was against birth control but due to sexual reasons not because he was pro life or pro children as the above shows. The same is true of Jerome who was against birth control again having nothing to do with having children but due to sexual reasons. Jerome is the one John Paul was quoting when John Paul warned about looking at your wife with lust. Jerome by the way got that idea from a pagan author which John Paul was probably unaware of.
________________________________________________
Bottom line, constant tradition was isolated to the outer raw prescription: do not use birth control.
The deep structure reasons were not a constant tradition at all.
With the modern Popes, it is partly about having children. With the two prominent Fathers on birth control, it was because sex was not love..it was concupiscence…and only marriage and procreation which they did not favor, excused the act from being wholly shameful.
Hence Augustine’s title within his book: “The Use of Matrimony for the Mere Pleasure of Lust is Not Without Sin, But Because of the Nuptial Relation the Sin is Venial.” Marriage and Concupiscence chapter 16 (sometimes 14).
__________________________________________________
The constant tradition that HV had claimed was a thin thing indeed…a prescription. The substructure which was being revealed in sporadic crazy comments of saints in the press changed tremendously but HV never admitted that. Now look at footnote 4 in HV where it is supposed to list the tradition and almost every detail postdates the mid 19th century except the Trent catechism.
I’ve been looking online for coverage of the CCCB meeting, without any luck. I did notice that the CCCB website referred to Richard Gaillardetz as a “well-known and award-winning Catholic author and theologian”, so I’m sure he’s in for a nasty inquisition.
Spirit, could you explain that last comment, with regard to the practical ruling and the softening of it?
Bill,
That’s an awful lot of energy over dill-and-cummin. If only you would use your powers for good. ;)
brettsalkeld, he is using his powers for good. It is important to know the historical truth in all these matters.
When Anglican or Catholic bishops speak on gay issues they would do well to recall that about 2 centuries ago they were to the fore in calling for the execution of gays (including burning at the stake) — something for which they have never apologized.
Truth is great, and those who fear truth must have some evil reason for it.
Pinky,
There are a few things in the Salt & Light Blog here:
http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/
Also, I’m sure he’s not in for a nasty inquisition because it is entirely unnecessary. Nevertheless, he is presenting on the ordained ministry, one of the topics about which the concerned groups have raised objections concerning his teachings. If he’s a heretic, it’ll come out. I’m not too worried for him.
The practical ruling is the small section of the Encyclical where the Pope declared all contraceptive acts to be intrinsice inhonestum. The softening came from Paul VI himself in his letter to Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington: acts that are objectively immoral can be “diminished in guilt, inculpable, or subjectively defensible”. Many Episcopal Conferences stressed the rights of subjective conscience and treated the Encyclical as a recommendation to conscience, to be judged soberly by the married couples themselves; these official reactions were not rejected by Rome. (But in the decades since the Vatican has undercut the authority of Episcopal Conferences, reducing it to almost nothing.) The “softening” was pursued further in the subtle reflections of moral theologians (I refer only to those who accepted the Encyclical) and of course in the pastoral practice of countless priests (this was in the days of the Confessional, whose demise has had much to do with the Encyclical).
There is more than one path to truth and my contribution to this discussion is based more on practical and scientific knowledge than on theological or historical knowledge.
Spirit of Vatican II identifies adherence to HV as a litmus test – and I have often had the same appreciation. When people dissent from HV, my sense is that they are in a state of blind adherence to contraception.
Nature provides only a very few days a month when conception is possible and science provides us with ever better ways to identify those days. Yet we are so often wedded to the belief that we need to take hormonal drugs every day to manage our fertility. This is such crass nonsense.
Yet it is understandable. The pill is God’s gift to the pharmaceutical industry, a daily medication for all healthy women for years on end. In todays’s world, it is hard to compete with the almighty dollar when you’re peddling something that is virtually free.
I can accept the need to understand the role of conscience when applied to participation in military ventures. But to expend effort in developing a conscience justification to use artificial contraception today seems to me a gross misuse of time. People who cite contraception as the issue defining their differences with the church have little credibility with me.
Fact is the vast majority of adult catholics have not much practical use for HV – never will in most peoples honest opinon really- sure the church and interested parties can virtuously muse all they want – bottom line married couples will have regular sex way beyond procreational needs. They always had – they always will.
In my view the church is barking up the wrong tree in this instance.
brettsalkeld
Lol…I am quite confident though in my general mission as Spirit of Vat II says. We will never convert the very intelligent of the Orient for example as long as we leave out the sin side of Church which Vatican II did begin to speak of. France e.g. represented Catholicism oddly enough during the 19th century in China and along with England forced on China after the Second Opium War in the treaty….both the opening to missionaries and the English opium trade simultaneously…with no protest about the drugs from Pio Nono because he needed France to protect the papal lands which were lost eventually anyway. Any history book has it and one will never hear it on EWTN or see it addressed in a letter to China from a Pope….but intelligent China knows it….and is waiting to see how truthful we are about such things. We are running out of mudmen to convert.
Dave K
You wrote: ” People who cite contraception as the issue defining their differences with the church have little credibility with me.” But who are you?
Your love of NFP is a good thing. Your use of the issue to spot sinners is not a good thing. You are a scientist not a confessor.
Imagine if you were like Brett who stands by NFP with absolutely no need to vilify those who do not.
Imagine how peaceful your life would be. You’d actually have peace…. one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
94% of Catholics are not using NFP and are not always using the pill and no Pope since 1968 has even commissioned a study group to find out why. I’d call that non involvement by Popes.
If 94% of Catholics were robbing ATM machines weekly, one would hope that the Popes during that period would appoint a study group and convene the Bishops constantly (heck the Vatican can afford a constant astronomy group parked at the Vatican for centuries now). The lack of any study group or large synods about the issue nor any emergency like behaviour in Popes with allegedly 94% of the Church going into eternal damnation over this issue….says what about the certitude of the Popes themselves?
Spirit,
I was kidding, as you know. I agree that having all the information is essential. I agree with Bill that the Vatican should be more forthcoming about its warts. I disagree, as you might expect, with the suggestion that the condemnation of artificial birth control is based in something so flimsy as the bizarre views of Augustine and Jerome in the historical record he presents. I think it is actually quite intrinsically related to human flourishing.
Bill and Dave,
I am sympathetic to couples I know who are in terrible spots (usually serious health issues or the fact that their governments will forcibly abort any subsequent children). This doesn’t mean I think AC is their best option, but simply that it doesn’t cause me despair when faithful Chinese Catholics think they have no other option. I am not inclined to think of them as unfaithful for this reason alone.
On the other hand, I totally agree with Dave that a better catechesis in this area would make a lot of people’s marriages better. I do believe that the widespread use of contraception has been very destructive for the culture at large and for Catholics in particular.
Nevertheless, some of the catechesis on this is terribly done. Somehow or other the idea that the Church says every sex act must have the possibility of procreation persists, despite all the evidence. (E.g. no condemnations of sex during pregnancy, post-menopause, after a hysterectomy, endorsement of NFP etc.) It shows up in Grega’s comments that couples have sex beyond procreational needs. Of course they do. As long as our popular catechesis implies that they should not, even though the Church doesn’t teach anything of the sort, the confusion will continue.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/08/what-%E2%80%98openness-to-life%E2%80%99-does-not-mean/
Brett
Your write: ” I disagree, as you might expect, with the suggestion that the condemnation of artificial birth control is based in something so flimsy as the bizarre views of the Augustine and Jerome in the historical record he presents. I think it is actually quite intrinsically related to human flourishing.”
That’s you, Brett. The Popes are repeatedly on record as appealing to Tradition…not pure reason.
The Chinese example is fascinating. Using NFP, the Mainland Chinese couple might possibly have only one child and be in compliance with the communist government.
However during the 1960′s when unreliable rythmn was the Church’s technique and Catholics protesting it but using it (Pat Crowley… and her group of thousands of couples who wrote in) were prominent at the birth control commission, the Chinese Catholic obeying Rome then in the 1960′s and prior would mostly likely have another child and be arrested and their children would have been orphaned and placed in a communist hostel for such purposes….all based on an idea that is not clearly infallible in the ordinary magisterium and an idea that only about 8 out of 265 Popes have ever written on. When NFP is discussed on the net, it is never about such tragic situations where the threat of the destruction of a family is involved as in China; it is about fairly affluent US or Canadian families and whether they will have a family bigger than other Catholics but smaller than the Amish and Hutterites (average 9 children) (the last three Popes, all strict on this issue, came from smaller families while John XXIII came from a large family and started what became the birth control commission.
Spirit, you threw me with the comment about the small section near the end. In point of fact, HV is 31 paragraphs long, and the condemnation of artificial birth control is the dominant topic of paragraphs 5-6, 10-17, 20-21, 25-28, and 30-31.
I’d also point out to Bill Bannon that the Church’s traditional view of the sacrament of marriage contradicts Augustine, and Aquinas specifically contradicts him. With all due respect to the great saint from Hippo, he always wrestled with dualism. It’s unfair to depict the Church teaching on artificial birth control as the misreading of two extremist Fathers.
Also, I’d wager that 94% of pubescent boys also have problems with purity, in their alone time. There’s no need for a Papal commission to figure out why. It’s a tough teaching, and one that requires a lot of prayer to adhere to, and the sacrament of penance is available for those who falter. But it’s a moral teaching of the Church, and it’s true, and the Church isn’t going to change it.
Brett
PS… Here by the way is Fr. John Hardon SJ as to Augustine’s centrality on the issue:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_003.htm
PS2 and note the coverup job
Fr. Hardon does vis a vis the quotes I gave above.
Bill, I said certain people have little credibility with me.
I’m not judging their state of virtue or “spotting sinners”.
I simply think that their philosophical position does not hold water. It is surely still possible to put down an argument without putting down the person making it?
I don’t think Aquinas has the high positive valorization of the unitive merits of marital sex that became accepted in Catholicism only in the mid 20th century. In fact, I seem to remember that he follows Augustine in seeing all sex as somewhat peccaminous even if he is milder than Augustine.
Dave K
Then their position should have little credibility with you but you noted that they…the people… have little credibility with you. Yet two strict Popes for forty years had nothing bad to say about Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Bernard Haring who dissented from HV publically. Not only did they not say those two men lacked credibility with them but several years ago, Archbishop D’Amato, 2nd in command at the CDF, while at the Lateran post humous Rahner conference, called Rahner an orthodox theologian which was the point of Gaillardetz that the issue permits of sincere dissent. Meanwhile on the net, you had the president of a Catholic defensive organization accuse Rahner of numerous things at Radical Catholic Mom without once citing an actual Rahner text.
There is a judging divide….and the lay judges and the Corapi’s do not resemble the quiet non judgementalism of the last two Popes in this area.
Pinky
Read the above Fr. Hardon link on the centrality of Augustine to Catholic marriage documents which is the opposite of your above note. It…pretty picture Augustine paradigm…. is simply done even by Popes by not stating the whole Augustine and thus making him look more sane than he was. Nowhere will a Pope mention that Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom by the way had no interest in people having multiple children. It is just magical that Rome can depend on Catholics to not read whole texts….or else even the Popes are not reading whole texts of these men.
We have an issue partly based on a fictional edited Augustine. And Chinese must be ready to have their family destroyed over it. And it’s an issue Christ never mentioned once. Amazing.
Brett,
“Somehow or other the idea that the Church says every sex act must have the possibility of procreation persists, despite all the evidence. (E.g. no condemnations of sex during pregnancy, post-menopause, after a hysterectomy, endorsement of NFP etc.)”
As laudable as I find your enthusiasm to call the glass half full here. If the examples you can come up with for licit non procreational marital sex boil down to:
no condemnations of sex during pregnancy
post-menopause
after a hysterectomy
I hope you can understand that this issue is simply not one solvable by better ‘education’.
Why sugarcoat it – the church requests a tough thing from us – whichever way you look at it – it is tough – 94% (?) of us find ways not to take the church advise all that serious really – in my view those 94% will not end up in hell – which is part of the problem because you can bet if folks would truly feel that eternal punishment is awaiting them they would not gamble on this one. Honestly this issue is just a nice watercooler type thing to chatter about – money and sex talk- what is really going on is that the vast majority of Catholics do not really believe in heaven and hell the same way anymore.
But I imagine if I where on of the 6% I would likely think that the position of 94% of weak,sexed up folks with wrong priorities around me have “philosophical positions that do not hold water”.
I do not even wish to be ‘stronger’ frankly – this married father enjoys his modest amount of regular very lovely non procreational sex – and no this kind of thing -in our case at least -is not be governed by the pill.
Grega,
You missed a big one. The encouragement of NFP which effectively means it is fine to have sex 25 days a month when procreation is not possible. The others are most important as interpretive keys for understanding the Church’s endorsement of NFP because too many people think it has something to do with the tiny percentage chance of getting pregnant. Wrong! If NFP were 100% effective, the Church would still endorse it. The issue is not that procreation must be (however slightly) possible, as the allowance of sex during pregnancy etc. demonstrates.
As to sugar-coating, I assure you I have no interest in that. My own situation has given me great sympathy for those who struggle with NFP. Even with a certified teacher meeting us every 2 weeks, my wife and I go months at a time without being able to discern her fertility. Pastorally, many people in my situation have been failed by the Church and the NFP boosters. I know couples who struggle with NFP who end up teaching marriage prep and simply can’t bring themselves to ‘enforce’ it on anyone else because of the problems it has caused for they themselves. If we don’t support couples who struggle, it is always going to come back to bite us in the credibility.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/06/avoiding-fallout-from-theological-time-bombs/
It is not solvable simply by better education, but better education would do a lot to change the 94% to something less than 94%. The amount of misinformation out there is simply overwhelming.
Beyond education, the next step to help is pastoral care for couples who use NFP. A lot of couples are given one lesson and sent on their way, told to expect a perfect marriage. When they struggle they have nowhere to turn. And when others ask them about Church teaching, they have only negative experience to respond with. This kind of pastoral irresponsibility is undercutting the work of even the most enthusiastic NFP cheerleaders.
Brett,
How is it helpful to keep saying that NFP permits couples avoiding conception to have sex 25 days per month, when you admit that in practice, such couple may have to go months at a time without being able to determine which days they could have been having sex?
You ARE sugar-coating, even as you say you aren’t. Comparing the unfettered sex after menopause or sex during pregnancy to a theoretical 25 days per month which no one in practice can be confident won’t result in pregnancy . . . is really uncharitable. Isn’t it?
God bless all couples using NFP, but please don’t use that 25 day example.
R
Brett
I admire you and if you change, I suspect you will change sincerely as Bernard Haring did who started out as THE moral theologian in the 1950′s who supported the papal position as being of the natrual law but changed under the influence of women and their experience of rythmn at that time. NFP was unavailable to over 1960 years worth of Catholics and suddenly this very scientific technique is THE answer despite no Catholic in the 17th century ever hearing of it. Tomas Sanchez whom Pope Paul V not VI called the best moral theologian of that century told Catholics in his Theologia Moralis that they could sell one or two children into servitude in order to feed their remaining children. Now slavery is called an intrinsic evil…lol. Gee….Paul VI never mentioned that as being within the constant tradition. I’m done for awhile. I must return to the stock market where things make sense even though today, I’m trading implied volatility….it still makes more sense than the Chinese situation under NFP.
R,
It is indeed the case that many couples struggle. I also know of many couples who are virtually certain in practice and are as confident that they will not get pregnant as users of any other method. Both cases exist in the real world of NFP. The point of all of the examples, whether during pregnancy or the theoretical 25 days, is to show what the Church is actually against and why. It is not to make things look easy. I am sorry if that is the impression you got. It was not my intention.
Thanks for your concern for people who struggle.
We know what the Church is against, but after 41 years no one know why. Paul VI made a nice speech in his Encyclical, but could just as well have drawn the conclusion that marriage should be open to life in general, rather then the tight regulation that each and every act of sex must be open to the transmission of life. Leave out the lines where he made that narrow ruling and the rest is OK.
And why are we still discussing this? Why has the Church wasted so much time and energy on this dill-and-cummin nonsense? Why, in addition, has it imperilled millions of people world wide with its benighted utterances on condoms?
Spirit,
A lot of people actually don’t know what the Church is against. As I have written elsewhere, terminology like ‘each and every act of sex must be open to the transmission of life’ easily confuses people about what the Church actually teaches. The idea that post-menopausal sex is allowed because God could work a miracle and other such nonsense is not uncommon.
Also, I’m not sure how bringing up the issue of condoms and AIDS (which I see as quite tangential) belongs in the same paragraph as a plea to let the conversation die. ;)