From the Register: "Are Many Marriages Today Invalid?"

In light of Pope Francis' recent off-the-cuff remarks about marriage validity (and subsequent walk-back), a heated discussion has ensued among many Catholics about just how hard or easy it is to confect a legitimate marriage.

Thankfully, and contrary to what we might hear, it's not all that difficult to confect a valid and/or sacramental marriage! This article from the National Catholic Register, lays it all out beautifully:

Are Many Marriages Today Invalid?

This fantastic piece is written by Benedict Nguyen, M.T.S., J.C.L./J.D., D.Min (ABD), who is canonical counsel and theological advisor for the Diocese of Corpus Christi and an adjunct professor for the Avila Institute.

I have bookmarked the article for myself and I hope each of you will take the time to read it through. It's clearly written and easy to understand, and many of my own questions were answered.

Pope Francis, The Joy of Love, and the pastoring of souls

*UPDATE: Cardinal Schönborn Gives Clarification on Communion (hopefully, this will put all the anti-Francis nastiness to rest.)

I am not going to lie. I am exhausted. I have been discussing the Pope's latest exhortation on my Facebook page for two days now, in several different posts and threads, and it's taken its toll. But, I have to blog it, and I hope to be coherent.

Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL), “The Joy of Love” is a 255-page, nine chapter document about Love and the Family. It's deep, thorough, beautiful, and wonderfully practical. It clearly and unequivocally restates Church teaching that abortion, contraception, and gay "marriage" are objectively, intrinsically immoral. It stresses the right of a child to have a mother and a father, the right of parents to educate their children, and the rights of conscience for health care workers and others.

I've heard almost no one talk about those facts or what else is in the document (and there is so much!). I've only heard people talk about what is not actually in the document, but what they believe is implied in a footnote, and they are upset.

Keep in mind: AL is not a doctrinal document, it is a pastoral one meant to accompany us messy, wounded souls on our journey to the heart of the Trinity. The exhortation is not magisterial in nature and does not intend to change magisterial teaching.

However, the ferocity and malice from some of the "faithful" is appalling. Listen well, please: I am not appalled by those who simply feel confused about some of the language used in the document -- specifically, that one footnote in this vast work, which the pope could not even immediately recall when asked about it on the plane ride on April 16. But on that plane ride, he did express great frustration with the fact that the media was focused on something they considered most important (the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried), not what he considered most important:

"When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because...do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? ... Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems."

I share the Holy Father's frustration! It is troubling to me that the firestorm of discussion on social media is about something that, frankly, isn't even there. It troubles me that vast numbers of critics have not even read the document.

If nothing else, I urge all those concerned about the exhortation to read the "controversial" chapter, which is Chapter 8. I read it, and I found it true, and good, and beautiful. I kept shaking my head as I read it, wondering on what basis folks were upset? I kept thinking, "But there is nothing new here! I have know all of this for 21 years, since my reversion. It's nothing new!"

I am guessing that this type of passage, below, is what bothers some people, but can someone explain why? These are the same principles the Church has always used when discerning and pastoring individual souls and culpability:


301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person.

(I urge you to read the entire chapter so that even this perfectly sound passage is put in the context of the whole.)

The Pope exhorts pastors to walk with, to "accompany", the wounded on their journeys to Christ and sanctity. It's what we do, it's what Christ does, it's what mercy and love require. In no way (and the pope says this time and again) does this change the moral law or the teaching of the Church or the requirements of the Gospel. But it acknowledges that in countless cases, due to the messed up cultures we all live in now, and the lack of formed consciences, we find ourselves in some real fixes! Some from which we cannot easily be extricated.

I use merely one example here, and it's a common one (I taught RCIA for five years, I can tell you many more):

A pastor encounters a secular and/or Protestant woman who (civilly) married a divorced man 20 years ago. She is currently moved to become a Catholic, but her beloved husband is not. Her secular husband wants no part of an annulment proceeding for his first marriage (let's say it was a Protestant wedding and assumed sacramental), and he certainly will not agree to live without sex for the rest of his life so that his wife can become Catholic and receive Communion. There are four children in the home, and that happy, stable home will be put at risk and likely be broken apart for those innocent children if the woman suddenly cuts the man off sexually. The Catholic Church recognizes the difficult situation and does not (now or previously) advise breaking apart the family.

So, what is the woman in the scenario to do? How does a pastor advise this particular soul in her particular situation? It's extremely complex (remember, truths and principles are simple, but people and circumstances are complicated), and aside from judicial issues, there are pastoral issues involved for this infinitely valuable soul and the souls of her family. That is exactly the kind of thing, that complexity, that question of levels of culpability, that Pope Francis was addressing in Chapter 8, and there is nothing new there.

The pope is addressing pastors who are dealing with these excruciating situations where individual human beings may not be fully culpable when they find themselves in a type of no-man's land with no easy solution.

We can work to gather people in, or we can push them away.

The hand-wringing, the complaints, the anger, the vitriol, the despairing by otherwise "faithful" Catholics is hard to watch. There is true hatred for this pope, and it's sad and ugly! (And I'm saying this as someone who admittedly prefers the "style" and doctrinal clarity of a Benedict or a St. John Paul II.)

I used to get annoyed when people would focus on the sins of the "older brother" in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, (because I so sympathized with that older brother) but now I see why he is the most miserable of the characters in the story. When we have everything, when all that the Father has is ours, why are we (as I was) so afraid at the idea that someone else might "get away with something"? I also think about the Parable of the Laborers, and those who came late and got the same wage as those of us who worked all day. Have we been treated unjustly? No, we haven't! Our wage is just! Are we envious because God is generous and extends mercy to those who haven't been laboring as long as we have -- or can't just "get it right"?

I reiterate: I am not speaking to those who simply wish to have clarification about the document and those who are sincerely confused. But there is something unholy about the whole-sale ignoring of a 255-page document by the Vicar of Christ on the crisis of marriage and family, when it's a message this world so desperately needs to hear.





Related article:  Amoris Laetitia and the Progressive Pope Myth

Newsflash: Pope Francis did NOT just green-light contraception!

I feel like yelling.

Look at the second line of this headline:

NO, the Pope did NOT say birth control is OKAY. That is UNTRUE. The Drudge headline erroneously extrapolates from this distorted AP article, but let's read closer, yes? Francis says that it is not intrinsically evil to avoid pregnancy (DUH!!!), unlike abortion which is intrinsically evil. And he even references Pope Paul VI, the very person who wrote Humanae Vitae, which condemns contraception!

From the AP article itself:

Abortion "is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil at its root, no? It's a human evil," he said. "On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (Zika), such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear."

Guess what? He just said what the Church has always said: Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. And there are ways of avoiding pregnancy, as Pope Paul VI said, that are moral. It's called Natural Family Planning.

Hello??? Is anyone ever listening?

DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA, people!!! Sigh....





*Please note that even the word "Zika" was inserted by the reporter, not spoken by Pope Francis.

The Synod Report is out in English; LGBTQ agendas are dashed

Did anyone notice?

I never wrote about, nor was I at all concerned about, the Synods Of Bishops On The Family that convened at the Vatican in recent months amidst much hand-wringing and controversy. I was saddened by the number of Catholics who were up in arms and full of anxiety, who followed every news report, interview, and conspiracy theory, wondering what the final result would be.

Why was any faithful Catholic worried? Why do we not trust the Holy Spirit? Jesus Christ is not dead, He is fully alive and the Head of His Church.

Finally, the English translation of the The Final Report of the Synod Of Bishops is out, and it is a steel-strong, unassailable re-statement of the truths of marriage, family, and human sexuality. The report, as the National Catholic Register has noted, has "not only dashed the hopes of those who hoped the Church would jettison its historic and biblical teaching on sexual ethics, it blew them to hell."

For the millionth time, the hopes of the heterodox were raised, and for the millionth time, they have been dashed. When will people understand?

"Gender ideology" is utterly rejected (Section 8, emphases mine):

Today, a very important cultural challenge is posed by “gender” ideology which denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without gender differences, thereby removing the anthropological foundation of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative guidelines which promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, which can also change over time. According to our faith, the difference between the sexes bears in itself the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). “This tells us that it is not man alone who is the image of God or woman alone who is the image of God, but man and woman as a couple who are the image of God. [...] We can say that without the mutual enrichment of this relationship — in thought and in action, in affection and in work, as well as in faith — the two cannot even understand the depth of what it means to be man and woman. Modern contemporary culture has opened new spaces, new forms of freedom and new depths in order to enrich the understanding of this difference. But it has also introduced many doubts and much skepticism. [...] The removal of the difference [...] is the problem, not the solution” (Francis, General Audience, 15 April 2015).

Homosexual "marriage" is denounced as a lie (Section 76):

Regarding proposals to place unions of homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family” [CDF]. In every way, the Synod maintains as completely unacceptable that local Churches be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies link financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between people of the same sex.

There was also no mention of admitting the divorced and remarried (without annulment) to Holy Communion, as had been widely rumored. Nothing has changed. Why did anyone think it would?

Every Catholic needs to be at peace with Christ's promises. Our Lord would not have warned us against building our houses on shifting sand if He had not also provided the firm ground on which we are to build. His Church is that unshifting ground, and those who have built upon it have nothing to fear.

When will we learn to trust?

It's important to note that the Synod Report is not primarily concerned with gender ideology and homosexual "marriage" (aside from the rejection of their veracity). There is so much more, so much goodness and beauty and mercy in it, and so much help and hope for families today, rooted in eternal truths and promises, all of which are made for human flourishing. Read it all, here.

I am grateful to Pope Francis for convening the Synod, and I love what he is doing to bring in the lost sheep. He stands for unwavering Truth even as he reaches out in mercy and love to a world that, without Jesus, has no hope.

And did you all know that today is the pope's birthday? Let us each offer up a prayer for the Holy Father's intentions today!

Happy Birthday, Papa!

CNS photo/Paul Haring

My personal favorites from Pope Francis' visit to America!

Just a quick rundown of the things that struck me the most during the Holy Father's recent visit to America, in no particular order...

The sheer joy (and tears) he brought with simple acts of love and kindness:

Underneath this video on Facebook, the comments were extraordinary, including these:

From a Muslim commenter -- "Pope Francis makes me believe in humanity."

From a secular commenter -- "I am not a religious person but i have so much respect and admiration for this pope. He is doing so much good in this world. You can tell he truly cares about people and has an amazing heart. If there is a god, this is exactly the kind of person who should represent him."


And who could not be moved by this woman's reaction to seeing the pope? Fourteen years ago, she was a first-hand witness to the devastation of 9/11, and she has been searching for hope ever since:

The Vicar of Christ's job description is to restore hope to a weary world.


How heartening was Pope Francis' unscheduled stop to visit and support the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are embroiled in a lawsuit against the Obama administration, fighting for religious liberty and conscience rights!

Pope Visits US Nuns Involved in 
Obamacare Contraception Lawsuit

Those who would say that gay marriage laws trump rights of conscience might want to know what the pope had to say about that when questioned by reporters on a flight:

...conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right." 

Francis added: "Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, 'this right has merit, this one does not.'" 

Asked if this principle applied to government officials carrying out their duties, he replied: "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right."

Is anyone listening? Obama?

UPDATE! Check this out:

Kim Davis Had Secret Meeting With Pope Francis

(And he told her to "stay strong!")

And in the "Funniest and Weirdest Thing I've Seen in a Long Time" category:

The Congressman Who Stole the Pope's Water Glass 

and Drank From It 

Take note that this Congressman and the other Democrat he called over are Catholics who proudly support the evil of abortion. Perhaps their "thirst" for something holy, as misguided as it was, is a sign that they might one day turn back to Christ and Truth? Someone should tell them that the Sacrament of Confession, rather than thievery, would be a better way to cleanse their souls.


My nephew in New York waited outside for four hours to get into Madison Square Garden for the pope's mass, and he texted me after:

Mass was amazing! I've never seen so many people packed in the streets -- even for New York -- or someone so wildly popular. It was an incredible experience. You would never guess that New York was secular and liberal based on the reception haha 

Oh yes, the dying, irrelevant, out-of-touch Catholic Church, led by an old, celibate white man had secular New York City electrified and cheering! Go figure. ;)


And oh wasn't it beautiful, during the Festival of Families in Philadelphia, when several international Catholic families greeted the Pope and told their stories! The Jordanian family who has endured real persecution for Christ; the Nigerian wife and mother who poured out her painful and incredible story of faithfulness; St. Gianna Molla's own daughter reading a love letter from her mother to her father, Pietro, written just days before they married, then the saint's daughter embracing the Holy Father!

Too many other incredible moments to mention, but all so affirming of families, of our Faith, and of the universality of the Church. We are blessed, and everyone is invited to join us!

Now, as for commentary, this is my favorite. So many Catholics and non-Catholics have their reasons for loving Pope Francis, but also their reasons for criticizing him for what he did or did not do. Dr. Gerard Nadal, a pro-life and pro-marriage warrior of many years, said it best:

[Some traditionalist Catholics] paint a picture of a pope who has ignored the red meat issues of American Catholicism’s troubles in favor of a left-wing socio-political agenda. How do you solve a problem like Francis? How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? (Cue the Sound of Music) 

But as this papacy has unfolded, something about traditionalists’ complaints over Francis calls attention back on the traditionalists and their hero popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In thirty-five years of these two giant popes, we have witnessed all of the heavy-lifting both philosophically and theologically on the sexual revolution and the decline of the status of human persons in the twentieth century. We’ll be unpacking their writing for decades to come. As western civilization has crumbled, we clamor for more writing, more words, more defense of the sacred. And we get to the point where this author needs to ask, “What more needs to be said?” How many more words? How many more documents? How many more encyclicals? How many more speeches, homilies, press conferences?

Read the whole thing, here:

Oh, Francis...

And if some of you are still bothered by what you perceive to be Francis' "silence" on the issue of abortion, why did Planned Parenthood get so upset with him? They heard him loud and clear. Don't we hear him, too?

And as for marriage, what about this?

And this?

Needless to say, our understanding, shaped by the interplay of ecclesial faith and the conjugal experience of sacramental grace, must not lead us to disregard the unprecedented changes taking place in contemporary society, with their social, cultural – and now, unfortunately juridical – effects on family bonds. These changes affect all of us, believers and non-believers alike. Christians are not “immune” to the changes of their times. This concrete world, with all its many problems and possibilities, is where we must live, believe and proclaim. 

Until recently, we lived in a social context where the similarities between the civil institution of marriage and the Christian sacrament were considerable and shared. The two were interrelated and mutually supportive. This is no longer the case.

And, if there was any doubt about the Pope's very reason for visiting America, he cleared that up when he said to the US Bishops:

“I appreciate the unfailing commitment of the Church in America to the cause of life and that of the family, which is the primary reason for my present visit.”

Can anyone be unsure of what he meant?


Finally, our Papa is fully aware of the crisis of young people who are forgoing marriage and family. In perhaps my favorite passage from his trip, Pope Francis asks pastors, in his address to bishops from around the world, to invite young people to choose marriage and family over the "culture of discouragement":

Many young people, in the context of this culture of discouragement, have yielded to a form of unconscious acquiescence. They are paralyzed when they encounter the beautiful, noble and truly necessary challenges which faith sets before them. Many put off marriage while waiting for ideal conditions, when everything can be perfect. Meanwhile, life goes on, without really being lived to the full. For knowledge of life’s true pleasures only comes as the fruit of a long-term, generous investment of our intelligence, enthusiasm and passion. 

...[W]e are living in a culture that convinces and pushes young people toward not founding a family. Some because of a lack of material resources and others because they have so many resources that they are very comfortable as they are. And this is the temptation: to not found a family. 

[We must extend] a sincere invitation to young people to be brave and to opt for marriage and the family.... We have to make young people excited about taking this risk, because this is a risk for fecundity and life.... 

...A pastor must show that the “Gospel of the family” is truly “good news” in a world where self-concern seems to reign supreme! We are not speaking about some romantic dream: the perseverance which is called for in having a family and raising it transforms the world and human history.

There is so much more from his trip to America that I missed! I want to find a way (and time) to go back and watch all the footage, every event and homily, and yet I'm pretty sure I won't be able to. At least I have these highlights, and I'd love to hear yours!

PS: The US Bishops have pretty much every event and homily and speech right here on their site.

What Obama forgot to mention in his welcome to Pope Francis!

Forgive me, I promised not to be negative, but then I woke up to this.

A welcoming speech by the President (well, by his speechwriter) that made me choke a little.

I thought I'd take a few excerpts of the speech and add some words that Obama surely inadvertently omitted (in red, with links to evidence provided)...

Photo: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

...all Americans, from every background and of every faith, value the role that the Catholic Church plays in strengthening America. From my time working in impoverished neighborhoods with the Catholic Church in Chicago to my travels as president, I’ve seen firsthand how, every day, Catholic communities, priests, nuns and laity feed the hungry, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, educate our children and fortify the faith that sustains so many.

[Aaaand....I am suing the Little Sisters of the Poor, all the way up to the Supreme Court, demanding that they either violate their religious vows or face crushing fines and ruin.]

What is true in America is true around the world. From the busy streets of Buenos Aires to remote villages in Kenya, Catholic organizations serve the poor, minister to prisoners, build schools and homes, and operate orphanages and hospitals. And just as the Church has stood with those struggling to break the chains of poverty, it has given voice and hope to those seeking to break the chains of violence and oppression.

[Except for the thousands of victims of sex trafficking that the Catholic Church was most effective in helping over many years. My administration pulled all federal funding for those programs because the Church would not violate her sacred tenets by providing contraception and abortion advocacy and services.]

You call on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to put the “least of these” at the center of our concern. You remind us that in the eyes of God our measure as individuals, and as societies, is not determined by wealth or power or station or celebrity, but by how well we hew to Scripture’s call to lift up the poor and the marginalized, to stand up for justice and against inequality, and to ensure that every human being is able to live in dignity – because we are all made in the image of God.

[Well, "all" except for millions upon millions upon millions of human beings against whom I advocate with vigor. I am hugely thrilled to consistently and unashamedly promote and ensure the killing of unborn human beings, and even the newly-born if they survive an attempt on their life, in the name of what I hold most sacred -- abortion.]

You remind us that “the Lord’s most powerful message” is mercy. That means welcoming the stranger with empathy and a truly open heart – from the refugee who flees war-torn lands to the immigrant who leaves home in search of a better life. It means showing compassion and love for the marginalized and the outcast, those who have suffered and those who seek redemption.

[Oh, except for the increasingly desperate and specifically Christian refugees who are the victims of an ongoing genocide in the Middle East. Those folks I will not welcome.]

You remind us that people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, we cherish religious liberty. Yet around the world at this very moment, children of God, including Christians, are targeted and even killed because of their faith. Believers are prevented from gathering at their places of worship. The faithful are imprisoned. Churches are destroyed. So we stand with you in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue, knowing that people everywhere must be able to live out their faith free from fear and intimidation.

[Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Whee-boy, that is funny!! Whoops, sorry, back to my speech, and watching carefully for bolts of lightning....]

+++++++

Well, you get the picture. I'm trying to be less of a cynic, but when I wake up to this load of bunk, it's hard!

And I didn't even go into how Obama's administration decried Catholics in Poland as dangerous bigots for opposing gay "marriage"! But let's just pretend that Obama is a friend of the Church.

God bless the Holy Father! May his very presence bless our troubled land!

"Breeding like rabbits", eh?

Pope Francis is an incredibly personable man, and he loves to talk. I'd even say that he loves to gab, as if meeting great friends over coffee. His colloquialisms and off-the-cuff style are part of his charm, of course, and it's how he has enchanted most of the world, and certainly the press corps. But the press can also exploit the pope's friendly nature by picking headlines and editing stories in ways that don't quite capture the truth of things. 

I have learned to go to the full transcript of those plane interviews (which are still just a translation of the original) to get some context when I see headlines like these:

 

First of all, he didn't even use the the word "breed", but you'd think that he did, wouldn't you? Here's what he said about rabbits:

"Some think that -- excuse the language -- that in order to be good Catholics, we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood." 

In other words: Pope Francis in 2015 is repeating the teaching of Pope St. John Paul the Great in 1984 (see "Responsible Parenthood") who is repeating the teaching of Pope Paul VI in 1968 (see Humanae Vitae). 

And just like his predecessors, Pope Francis spoke these words of responsible parenthood within the overall context of condemning artificial contraception as a moral evil and promoting Natural Family Planning. I'm glad that most of the media reports did put that relevant fact in the body of their pieces, but gosh, if you don't get past the headlines, what would you think was the message?

And if you look above at the headline from Time, you get an even more distorted message: Pope Francis tells Catholics they SHOULDN'T be breeding like rabbits! To any normal human being, that would translate to something like: "Catholics, stop having big families! You should not be having lots and lots of kids!" Isn't that what you take away from the headline?

And yet, on the Feast of the Holy Family less than a month ago, Pope Francis spoke to an Italian association of large families about the importance of large families:

“In a world often marked by egoism, a large family is a school of solidarity and of mission that’s of benefit to the entire society."

Talk about controversy, the pope even went so far as to say:

“Every family is a cell of society, but large families are richer and more vital cells.”

So what could he have meant when he said that being a good Catholic does not require being "like rabbits"? He means the same thing that I and so many others have said a thousand times, but using slightly different words, namely: 

No, the Catholic Church does not teach (as many believe!) that a woman must have as many babies as physically possible. No one is forcing women to become "breeders" like an animal (hey, like a rabbit!). We Catholics believe in responsible parenthood, which means prudence in deciding what is best for the spouses, their children already born, and the society in which they live. And that prudence can mean either having many children (generously welcoming a houseful!), or having fewer  (and using only moral means to postpone pregnancy). Each couple is different, each family has different needs, and prayerful discernment is required.

And guess what else Pope Francis said immediately after he made the now-infamous "rabbit" comment? He said this:

"...for most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too, but for them a child is a treasure.... Responsible paternity, but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother who see a treasure in every child."

Oh, and did you hear what else he said on the same in-flight interview? Did you see all the headlines about the pope condemning "ideological colonization" (the West pushing its sex agenda on other vulnerable cultures as my dear friend Uju addressed so eloquently on this blog)?  I didn't think so, so here you go:

Kids in poor countries suffer 

when West pushes sex agenda, Pope says

Thank God for Catholic news sources!

+++++++

**Update: The Pope is making headlines again today, this time praising large families. No doubt in response to the massive misunderstanding!


**Update #2: The Pope has apologized for his words causing "disorientation", and reiterating his love for large families. I hope we all already understand this!

Pope Francis' closing statement to the Synod. Worth the read!

Originally posted by Rodrigo Guerra López. Thank you!

Pope Francis at the conclusion of the 

Extraordinary Synod on the Family

October 18, 2014

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

- The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

- The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

This is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God's People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it... that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

Young marriage: Another daughter engaged!

I feel like such a rebel! I have condoned -- no, encouraged! -- something that would have been unthinkable to me just a few years ago. The first public hints of my mental shift came through on a giddy facebook status a few weeks ago:

Through steady growth in my Faith and (please God) in wisdom, some of my philosophies of life have changed so much that I don't think even my 40-year-old self would recognize Leila today. Life is wild and wonderful. Hang on tight….

Followed by:

People think that the great freedom is in jettisoning the "constraint" of the moral law and God Himself. But they are wrong. There is no freedom there. The freedom is in jettisoning the more secular conventions of the culture, sometimes with abandon.

My mind was whirling, processing, but few people knew what was was happening behind the scenes.

Soon, I quoted the Holy Father:

“God always surprises us. Like the new wine in the Gospel, God always saves the best for us. But he asks us to let ourselves be surprised by his love, to accept his surprises. Let us trust God!” -- Pope Francis

I even brought my hidden excitement to this blog, posting these inspiring words from Pope Francis to those at World Youth Day:

Today, there are those who say that marriage is out of fashion; in a culture of relativism and the ephemeral, many preach the importance of "enjoying" the moment. They say that it is not worth making a life-long commitment, making a definitive decision, "forever", because we do not know what tomorrow will bring. 

I ask you, instead, to be revolutionaries, to swim against the tide; yes, I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes that you are incapable of responsibility, that you are incapable of true love. I have confidence in you and I pray for you. Have the courage "to swim against the tide". Have the courage to be happy.

The pope's exhortation to the youth resonated deeply within me, because something was brewing in my own family and was changing my own heart and mind.

I had always been a theoretical proponent of young marriage for our Catholic youth if the couple was sufficiently mature and understood the meaning of the Sacrament -- but not actually for my own children! After a college degree, yes, then the Miller children could safely head to the altar. But before? I couldn't condone it. I was just not that brave. Ultimately, I cared too much about what people thought.

But that was before the shocking realization that my 19-year-old daughter not only would soon get engaged, but should soon get engaged!

And now I don't care what people think.

Early marriage is not for everyone, to be sure. But this particular young adult couple, firmly ensconced in their Catholic Faith, desired to be married. Dean and I assessed the situation and ultimately agreed that they should be. Bam! Just like that, the conventions we grew up with were cast off like shackles. Our daughter would marry at the age of 20, before her degree was complete.

And so, with Mama still basking in the wonderful strangeness of it all, my husband and I give our blessing to what happened last weekend in Charleston, South Carolina, when our younger daughter agreed to marry the stellar 22-year-old man who proposed to her on bended knee in front of the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus Christ Himself, Who is the Source and Summit of both of their lives.

With the young man's parents' support and blessing as well, the Millers have begun planning another wedding that (depending on the Navy!) should take place in about a year.

I'm still in awe, and I couldn't be more thrilled by this turn of events -- and my own turn of heart.

God is full of surprises!

May the Lord bless the happy couple now and for many, many decades to come!

Jenna Rousseau Photography

Pope Francis is Time's Person of the Year

Not bad for a "dying", "irrelevant" institution stuck in the 10th century.
Mm-hmm.

Heck, when Time Magazine itself is lost in the dustbin of history, the papacy will still be going strong.

+++++++

Update: To find out what the Time article got all wrong, read Fr. Robert Barron's excellent piece, HERE.

When Truth doesn't cut it

For almost twenty years, I have operated under the assumption that souls generally come to God through a hearing of the Truth. After all, that's how my own faith was awakened -- by an exercise of the intellect. I read and I studied and I compared and I examined, and everything Catholicism claimed made beautiful sense to me. It was reasonable, logical, cohesive, coherent, and consistent. On the basis of that coherence, I changed my actions, my beliefs, my heart, and my soul, and I have never looked back. The Truth of the Church was, to me, the essence of her appeal. One of my favorite sayings when it comes to evangelization is "Truth comes with graces attached" -- and yes, it does.

However, I have recently come to understand that I and those like me are not the norm. I have learned that most people do not come to Christ and the Church through an exacting and exhilarating exercise of the intellect. For most people, Truth is not what initially propels them toward Christ.

Well, knock me over with a feather.

But don't get me wrong: Somewhere in my brain, I knew that already. Every human being is unique by design, and I'd read that different folks are drawn to God in different ways: Some are drawn by the fact that God is Truth, for sure, but others by His Oneness (unity), or by His Goodness, or by His Beauty, etc. I've referred to these different "voices of God" when discussing the call to conversion, but I don't think it truly sank in until recently.

First came the election of Pope Francis. For those of us who live mostly in our heads, adoring Truth, embracing intellectual order, craving clarity, and swooning at doctrinal precision, Pope Benedict XVI was our dream pontiff, following on the heels of another beloved papa, the philosopher Blessed John Paul the Great. We Truth-groupies had two popes in a row who nourished our souls by feeding our minds as well. Then suddenly, Pope Francis burst into our comfortable neatness and encouraged us to "make a mess" -- by leaving our books and debates and pristine doctrines for a time and going out into the streets and byways to meet our fellow human beings exactly where they are. Francis had impromptu, non-authoritative exchanges with journalists, secularists, and atheists, chats that were off-the-cuff, even sloppy -- not at all the polished and carefully weighed words of his predecessors.

And the world went nuts. And folks like me readjusted, mentally.

The world "likes" this pope, not for the doctrine and morality he teaches and preaches (which is no different from what came before), not because of ordered thought and careful words, but because he seems to care and listen and love. He seems relatable and real, and more like a loving grandpa in the neighborhood than a Supreme Pontiff on a throne.

But let me stop right here, lest anyone misunderstand: It's not that his predecessors did not love and care for and ache for every soul on the planet! Oh, how it boils my blood when people misunderstand the mystical, saintly JPII who embraced all mankind, or when they malign the shy and kindly Benedict, a quiet and gentle introvert. It's simply that Francis moves the world in a different way, and I think it's that he makes people feel something first, before he makes them think something.

For so many reasons, the soul of modern man is desperate to feel, and feel profoundly.

Francis instinctively operates on an understanding that I needed to learn: Most people do not come to Christ through Truth first. Most people come to Christ prompted by an encounter with Beauty or an experience of Goodness. Love and Truth cannot be separated, of course, but in this era of disconnection, isolation, and despair, Love must precede Truth or Truth won't get a hearing, much less an understanding. They will not hear our Truth if they do not first feel (and believe) our Love.

The next step in my broadened understanding came when I started pondering what I do on this blog. My whole shtick is debating and dissecting and raking over ideas for Truth and clarity. I know from the combox and from my email inbox that this approach is helpful to many, especially those Catholics who, due to poor catechetical formation, need to understand the tenets of the Faith better. I have something to offer in that area, it's been the main goal of the Bubble all along, and I've absolutely no intention of changing what I do on this blog (so don't worry, truthoholics!).

But I have noticed something other than the intellectual debates (and the insistence on Truth) quietly at work here.

You cannot imagine (heck, I would never have imagined!) what goes on behind the scenes of a blog like this. I don't want to reveal anything personal or betray confidences, but trust me when I say that many of the most challenging and even exasperating commenters are the nicest folks off-screen. I love them, truly, and I think they know it. I've been quiet friends with some of them for years, and a few have asked my advice or poured out their hearts, sensing that for all my doctrinal rigidity, I really do care. I've even had one hit-and-run Church-hater email me later to apologize and tell me the heartbreaking story behind the rage in her comment. I was able to pray for her and her family, and both our hearts were changed.

It's in the relationships forged, not so much the technical debates, that real human connections are made, and the fruit I've seen is that an opponent finds some respect for the Church and gives consideration to Christ where before there had been no such thing. I've even witnessed small miracles that have come through the heart-to-hearts and not through the doctrinal debates.

At some point, l will be able to tell you specific stories. Today, I will just remind you that behind every comment, query, challenge, and curse is a person who has a story -- and wounds that we cannot see. Be gentle and kind with everyone you meet and everyone you debate, because for most people, if they can't sense your authentic love for them, they will not want anything to do with your Truth.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. -- 1 Corinthians 13

Thank you, Pope Francis, for reminding us that Truth is not
always the first way to introduce Christ to the human heart. 

Yawn. The press gets it wrong again.

Catholics can always count on the press to get it wrong.

The next time the press says that some !!New Teaching!! is bursting forth from Pope Francis that will change the Church and bring her into the modern day (man, they do get giddy when they report such things), just remember that it's a bunch of bunk.

If a family member, friend, or co-worker asks you about the headlines, you are on safe ground by responding, reflexively, that none of those teachings are new. And then yawn just a little yawn for emphasis. Because this is boring, honestly.

For example when the 4,623rd headline screams, "OMYWORD THE POPE SAID THAT ATHEISTS HAVE A SHOT AT HEAVEN AHHHHHHHHH!!!!" …that is boring. That is old news. About 2,000 years old to be precise.

I summarized the teaching way back in 2011, before there was a Pope Francis:

Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

Am I a fortune teller? A soothsayer? Or, is this perhaps the same-ole, same-ole teaching of the Church throughout the ages? Yawn. You see what I mean? Boring.

When the press screams a headline like "HOLY CANNOLI POPE FRANCIS MIGHT CHANGE CHURCH TEACHING ABOUT PRIESTLY CELIBACY (EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T HE WHO MENTIONED IT, WHOOPS) AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! …that is also boring. The discipline (not doctrine) of priestly celibacy has always been changeable and debatable. And there have always been married Catholic priests (I know two personally). That is old news.

I summarized the difference between discipline and doctrine way back in 2010, long before there was a Pope Francis:

Catholics, You Must Understand This

Am I special? Do I have super-secret decoder-ring information that no one in the press has the ability to access? Or, could this always have been understood and accessed with minimal effort? Yawn. Again, boring.

And yet it's not only boring, it's inexcusable. How on earth does the world media get away with reporting on a subject without any knowledge of the subject? And since the teachings of the Church are so readily available, why aren't these reporters and pundits profoundly embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for their shoddy work?

As others have noted, the one good thing about all this journalistic malpractice is that Catholics have an opportunity to learn more about their Faith when this nonsense about our Church comes to the fore. I'm hoping that Catholics who wonder about these headlines and are faced with questions from others will being a study of Catholicism in earnest.

And maybe if they are corrected enough, some of the reporters will start to study the basic truths of Catholicism, too? That may be too much to ask, but hope springs eternal!

"I've often said that if a sports reporter was as clueless about his subject as the typical religion reporter is about his, he couldn't keep his job for a week."  -- Paul Thigpen

*Go here for a translation of the Pope's letter that has resulted in such a media frenzy.

Should Pope Francis "take on" birth control? A response

Hi folks, JoAnna here. I recently wrote the following post for Catholic Stand, 
and Leila asked if I'd mind running it on the Bubble as a guest post as well 
while she is on hiatus. 

+++++++

Robert McClory recently wrote an article for the National Catholic* Reporter, opining that Pope Francis should revisit the question of the morality of birth control. As per usual for the Reporter, this dissent from Church teaching contains many problems.

Problem #1: Terminology. This is a widespread problem, so I can't really fault McClory, but his terminology is problematic. The Church does not, in fact, teach that “birth control,” when used to refer to spacing pregnancies, is intrinsically immoral. In fact, the words “birth control” do not appear in the Catechism. The closest term is “regulation of births,” about which the CCC states, “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

In other words, it is not intrinsically immoral to use “birth control” to space pregnancies, provided that the method of birth control used is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. The Church teaches that there are only two such methods: periodic abstinence or complete abstinence (see CCC 2370).

Contraception, however, is a form of birth control that is intrinsically immoral and is not permitted under any circumstances. As Humanae Vitae states, contraception is “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

McClory is specifically speaking about the Church’s teachings regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception when he refers to birth control. He also states that the Church “forbids any form of artificial contraception” (emphasis mine), implying that moral methods of birth regulation are some sort of natural contraception, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Problem #2: Too Many of Them, Just Enough of Him. McClory begins his article citing Pope Francis’ general audience on June 5, in which the Holy Father laments the plight of children who are starving and encourages Catholics to do what they can to remedy that issue.

McClory’s solution is not to feed the children, or donate food, money, or other resources toward that end, or work toward reforming corrupt governments that hinder adequate food distribution. No, his solution is... wait for it… contraception!

Frankly speaking, this attitude is one of eugenics smothered with a thin veneer of false compassion. “We must think of the children!” is camouflage for this sentiment: “The hungry of the world are the poor, unfit, unwashed masses, so of course there should be less of them. We wouldn't those undesirables to breed, would we?”

If McClory did his research, he'd know that the World Food Programme – the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide – states that “There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.“ The problem is access, and throwing contraception at people who'd much prefer to have nutritious food is not going to solve that issue. (Incidentally, a search for the term “contraception” on WFP's site yields no results; obviously, unlike McClory, they don't believe it's the magical panacea for solving world hunger.)

Problem #3: The Holy Spirit Got It Wrong. McClory claims that he's “not suggesting the pope announce he is rescinding the church's position as dictated by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.” No, not at all! He just wants Pope Francis to re-examine Responsible Parenthood, which was issued by the Vatican's Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth in 1966. This document encouraged Paul VI to amend the Church's current position on contraception, arguing that the Pill should be an “exception” to the contraception ban since it didn't alter the physical aspects of the marital act (unlike condoms, which placed a barrier between man and wife).

Interestingly, it was Paul's VI intention that this document was for his eyes only, but unfortunately a copy was leaked to the press and its contents became available for public dissemination. The document caused many Catholics to believe that a change in teaching regarding contraception was imminent, as it was portrayed as the “majority opinion” of the Commission. The fact that, to quote Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, “Truth is not determined by majority vote” was a concept apparently lost to many Catholics at that time (and is a concept still lost to many Catholics today, including the entire staff of the National Catholic Reporter).

Paul VI, however, knew that the Commission was largely composed of pro-contraception advocates from its inception. According to Dr. Germain Grisez, emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s University, “Paul VI was aware of the ideological leanings of those he had appointed to the Commission, and had composed the Commission in this way in order to give their argument a fair hearing.”

Their arguments did not convince Paul VI, however, and two years later he issued Humanae Vitae, restating the Church's constant, unchanging teaching on artificial birth control and making several dire predictions about the negative changes that would come to pass if contraception became accepted and widespread among the populace – predictions that have all come true.

You'd think that the fact that these predictions have come true is simply evidence that Paul VI was correct in his decision, and that his words and actions in continuing to uphold the Church's ban on contraception were inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you?

Not so, says McClory's article. He believes that the Commission was “ahead of its time,” and his implication is that Paul VI went against the "correct" teaching and instead taught error as doctrine. Moreover, using this logic, the Church has continued teaching error as doctrine – the ban on contraception is reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is, according to Pope John Paul II, “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion“), and JPII also reaffirmed the evil of contraception in his encyclical Evengelium Vitae.

In short, McClory believes that the Holy Spirit got it wrong when He inspired the Church to reaffirm the ban against contraception, which means that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and Jesus was a liar. Therefore, Catholicism is a false religion. Given this logic, why does McClory bother to remain in a Church that he firmly believes teaches error as doctrine and has proven itself, by his own reasoning, to be a false church? How can he trust any of the teachings of the Church if he knows that She has taught error on one important aspect of doctrine (and if he's in favor of women's ordination, as are most of the NCR staff, that's another crucial area of doctrine the Church has allegedly gotten wrong)?

Problem #4: Pope Francis is Going to Change Church Teaching. McClory “couldn't help noting how the language of the document [Responsible Parenthood] so resembled the calm, non-argumentative, pastoral style of the current pope.”

I can't think of a single papal document issued in the last forty years or so that could be described as angry, argumentative, or non-pastoral, but his implication is that Francis' style is markedly different than that of Paul VI or JPII or Benedict XVI – yet reading any of the documents issued by any of these popes shows that they were all (or are still, in Pope Benedict's case) thoughtful, reasonable, pastoral shepherds of our Church.

I think McClory is projecting his own feelings of anger and dissent on the writings of the popes with whom he disagrees, and he's hoping that Pope Francis, whom he sees as more "liberal," will change all that by also changing Church teaching – because to accept the recommendations of Responsible Parenthood would be to do just that.

So no, Mr. McClory, Pope Francis will not “take on birth control,” because the teaching that contraception is an intrinsic evil is a teaching of the magisterium and is part of the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has neither the authority nor the desire to change this doctrine, and his pontificate so far has only served to emphasize that fact.

Stop fantasizing about what you hope Pope Francis will say and start listening to what he has actually said, such as in Lumen Fidei:

As a service to the unity of faith and its integral transmission, the Lord gave his Church the gift of apostolic succession. Through this means, the continuity of the Church’s memory is ensured and certain access can be had to the wellspring from which faith flows. The assurance of continuity with the origins is thus given by living persons, in a way consonant with the living faith which the Church is called to transmit. She depends on the fidelity of witnesses chosen by the Lord for this task. For this reason, the magisterium always speaks in obedience to the prior word on which faith is based; it is reliable because of its trust in the word which it hears, preserves and expounds. In Saint Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, which Saint Luke recounts for us in the Acts of the Apostles, he testifies that he had carried out the task which the Lord had entrusted to him of "declaring the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Thanks to the Church’s magisterium, this counsel can come to us in its integrity, and with it the joy of being able to follow it fully.”

*While this publication still identifies itself as Catholic, they were requested to remove that identifier from their name as early as 1968 – and the current bishop, Robert W. Finn, has also identified them as a problematic media source when it comes to authentic Catholic reporting.

+++++++