Comments on: Attacking Richard Gaillardetz: What Exactly is the Goal Here?

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:20:07 +0000

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. ;)

By: Spirit of Vatican II

Spirit of Vatican II — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:24:11 +0000

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?

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:25:58 +0000

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.

By: bill bannon

bill bannon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:54:47 +0000

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.

By: R

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:50:16 +0000

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.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:28:07 +0000

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.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:25:04 +0000

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/

By: grega

grega — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:10:01 +0000

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.

By: bill bannon

bill bannon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:27:36 +0000

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.

By: bill bannon

bill bannon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:17:17 +0000

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.

By: Spirit of Vatican II

Spirit of Vatican II — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:15:13 +0000

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.

By: Inviting Dissent: The Gaillardetz Visit « SoCon Or Bust

Inviting Dissent: The Gaillardetz Visit « SoCon Or Bust — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:59:04 +0000

[...] Attacking Richard Gaillardetz: What Exactly is the Goal Here? (Vox Nova) [...]