Archive for June, 2014
FIRST-PERSON: Cohabitation & divorce there is a correlation
by Glenn T. Stanton, Posted on Oct 4, 2011
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (BP) — How many computers or cars do you think Toshiba and Toyota would sell if they didn’t let you test them out first? Who in their right mind would make a big commitment of purchase without trying it out first?
But don’t we do the same with marriage? We ask young people to make one of the biggest commitments of their lives — rivaled only by their decision to become parents — without any prior experience of what marriage is actually like.
More than 60 percent of marriages today are preceded by some form of cohabitation. And 75 percent of current cohabitors enter these relationships with some plans toward marriage, even seeing this live-in relationship as a smart move toward marriage. But does the experience of cohabiting teach couples things that help make them better spouses once they do marry? Does cohabitation contribute to stronger, happier marriages?
Unfortunately, it does not. Not even close!
This is a rare instance where there’s a Grand Canyon sized chasm between what many young adults believe and the proven reality of their experience. And it is not the moralizing preachers and traditionalists saying so. A massive body of robust, diverse and conclusive scientific research on this question leaves no doubt about whether cohabiting is helpful to marriage. Graduate and postdoctoral seminars in sociology are held on this topic, and this is what they learn.
Sociologists investigating this question — working from two leading schools of sociology, the Universities of Chicago and Michigan — tell us clearly that the “expectation of a positive relationship between cohabitation and marital stability … has been shattered in recent years by studies conducted in several Western countries, including Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United States.”
Their data indicates that people with cohabiting experience who marry have a 50 to 80 percent higher likelihood of divorcing than married couples who never cohabited. A Canadian sociologist explains:
“Contrary to conventional wisdom that living together before marriage will screen out poor matches and therefore improve subsequent marital stability, there is considerable empirical evidence demonstrating that premarital cohabitation is associated with lowered marital stability.”
After surveying the data on this question, another leading scholar contends that the only conclusion one could honestly reach was to wholesale “reject the argument” that cohabitation contributes to stronger marriages.
In fact, if a couple wanted to substantially increase their likelihood of divorcing, there are few things they could do to so efficiently guarantee such an outcome than live together before marriage. In fact, this is such a consistent finding in the social science research that scholars have coined a term for it: “the cohabitational effect.”
This finding has become a truism partly because the process of cohabiting itself is shown to influence couples to learn to communicate, negotiate and settle differences in ways that are less healthy and honest than do couples who didn’t cohabit before marriage. This is probably because without a clearly defined relationship, the cohabiting couple can learn to be more controlling and manipulative with each other. And this leads to relational resentment and mistrust.
And this has nothing to do with social acceptance or rejection of living together. Doctors Claire Kamp-Dush and Paul Amato conducted a unique investigation that tracked two groups of cohabitors who eventually married: one that married between 1964 and 1980 and another that did so between 1981 and 1997. This allowed them to see if there were any changes in the cohabitation effect as cohabitation became more common and more accepted by society.
But they found “there was little evidence that the negative consequences of cohabitation dissipated over time as cohabitation became more prevalent.” Even after controlling for various social and economic factors that could account for such a difference, they discovered premarital cohabitors in both groups were significantly more likely to have lower levels of marital happiness, more marital conflict, and higher levels of divorce.
“One of the most clearly defined correlates of cohabitation is an increased risk of marital dissolution,” says professor Jay Teachman of Western Washington University. In a more recent examination of cohabitation’s impact, he calls cohabitation one of the most “robust predictors of marital dissolution” — making living together first one of the worst things you can do for your marriage. Teachman also warns that even premarital sex by itself is associated with an increased risk of marital disruption, though at lower rates than living together before marriage.
A 2010 “meta-analysis” looked at 26 peer-reviewed, published studies that followed various couples over time. This analysis found that marrieds who had cohabiting pasts were more likely to face divorce, and that “noncohabitors seem to have more confidence in the future of their relationship, and have less accepting attitudes toward divorce.”
And as with other studies, the married couples with no cohabiting past are less likely to engage in aggressive and negative interactions, experience more overtly positive interactions, and enjoy more positive communications. These researchers conclude, based on their review of the best studies to date:
“The major practical implication of this review is that psychologists can inform the public, that despite popular belief, cohabitation is generally associated with negative outcomes both in terms of marital quality and marital stability….”
You see, marriage is not a consumer product that you give a try to see how it suits you. Marriage is a leaving of all other relationships to give yourself completely to your beloved. Cohabitation says, “I’m not sure about you. Can I give you test-drive to see what I think?” Melts your hearts doesn’t it, ladies? Marriage says, “I want all of you and I want to give all of myself to you!” This is why cohabitation and marriage are such very different kinds of relationships. It is why the social sciences have come to the conclusions they have about living together before marriage being a poor and unhealthy idea.
–30–
This is an edited excerpt from Glenn T. Stanton’s book, “The Ring Makes all the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage.” Stanton is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Role of Conscience
Fr. Matthew Habiger OSB PhD
Contents
• What Is Our Conscience?
• Formation of Conscience
• Christian Marriage
• Humanae Vitae
• The Winnipeg Statement
• Follow-up Statement on Conscience by Canadian Bishops
• God Decides What Is Right and Wrong
• God Gives Moral Law To The Church
• The Church As Divine Institution and The Holy Father
As Vicar Of Christ
• Pastoral Obligation To Preach The Truth
• Papal Directives To Do More
What Is our Conscience?
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment” (GS 16) [1].
“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act… In all that he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right” (CCC 1778) [2].
“The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes 1) the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); 2) their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and 3) finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed…” (CCC 1780) [3].
“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters’” (CCC 1782) [4].
Formation of Conscience
Now we deal with shaping, educating, and forming the conscience. Forming our conscience is a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good (VS 63b) [5]. Recall the three components of conscience. First, we must learn the basic moral principles as known through the natural moral law, through Divine Revelation and by the teachings of the Magisterium. Part III of the CCC is very useful here. Second, we must learn how to do moral reasoning, how the moral principles apply to various situations in life. We must understand why a good moral principle is objective, consistent, with universal application. We see how they apply even to “hard cases.” Third, when making moral judgments about this particular human act, we are to use good reasoning in conformity with the truth and in pursuit of the good. All three components of the conscience require education, training, practice, and experience.
Very often we do not know what is good for us. Sinful surroundings and our own fallen nature, more prone to sin than to virtue, encourage us to dismiss teaching authority and prefer our own judgment. Formation of conscience helps us see the contrast between our culture and our faith. The faith is to shape the culture, not vice versa (CCC 1793) [6].
Education of the conscience is a lifelong task. It does not stop after Confirmation, or even after graduation from a Catholic college. Life takes us through different stages, all of which are more complex and rich in the mystery of life. New problems arise which require deeper and better applications of the basic moral principles. Papal encyclical and apostolic exhortations are often addressed to the morality of new problems, e.g. Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Evanglium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor. These were written for everyone, not just clerics.
Education of the conscience will also emphasize the role of the virtues and their opposite vices. Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. Human vices surface in the absence of virtue. The seven capital sins provide us with a rich insight into the inclinations of our fallen human nature, the dark side of human nature (CCC 1783) [7].
There are still other components for the formation of conscience. The Word of God is central. God reveals His plan for the human universe through the Sacred Scriptures. We are to interiorize the Gospels and allow them to help guide our choices and acts. We are to put on the mind of Christ, appreciate the beauty of the good, honor the splendor of the truth. Jesus is the Way, the Life and the Truth (Jn 14:6). The Cross is another component of the formation. The only way we overcome the ravages of sin in our lives is through the Cross, the instrument of our redemption. We must accept our share of redemptive suffering, our share of the work of our salvation. The moral life, the Christian life, demands self-denial, self-discipline, moral exercise. Still other components are: the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the witness and advice of reliable moral guides.
In the Vatican document on Religious Liberty the Church teaches: “In forming their consciences the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself” (DH 14) (CCC 1785) [8].
Christian Marriage
God has a plan for marriage. It is a very good plan. Our prophetic/teaching task is to teach God’s plan to our people.
“The intimate partnership of life and the love which constitutes the married state has been established by the creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws; it is rooted in the contract of its partners that is, in their irrevocable personal consent…. This sacred bond no longer depends on human decision alone” (GS 48a) [9].
“Married people should realize that in their behavior they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience – and conscience ought to be in accord with the law of God and the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfillment” (GS 50a) [10].
“But marriage was not instituted solely for the procreation of children: its nature as an indissoluble covenant between two people and the good of the children demand that the mutual love of the partners be properly expressed, that it should grow and mature” (GS 50b) [11].
“Some of the proposed solutions to these problems are shameful and some people have not hesitated to suggest the taking of life: the Church wishes to emphasize that there can be no conflict between the divine laws governing the transmission of life and the fostering of authentic married love” (GS 51a) [12].
“When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life it is not enough to take only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into account: objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; all this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is seriously practiced. In questions of birth regulation the sons and daughters of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to used methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law” (GS 51b)[13].
Since Gaudium et Spes (1965) and Humanae Vitae (1968), much good writing has been done on the themes of 1) making the gift of self (Law of the Gift), 2) communion of persons, 3) theology of the body, and 4) a Christian personalism. These provide rich veins of insight for priests to mine as they search for better and more penetrating ways to explain the beauty of God’s plan for marriage and spousal love.
Sources:
• Gaudium et Spes 48, 50, 51
• Familiaris Consortio
• Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan, John Paul II (Daughters of St. Paul, Boston: 1997).
• Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage, Mary Shivanandam (Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.: 1999).
• Why Humanae Vitae was Right: A Reader, edited by Janet Smith (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1993).
Humanae Vitae
Humanae Vitae presents us with God’s plan for love, life, marriage and family.
Is contraception, sterilization and abortion right or wrong? If wrong, why is it wrong? If seriously wrong, intrinsically evil, then why? We have here a moral absolute, for which there are no exceptions.
“Especially to be rejected is direct abortion – even if done for reasons of health.
“Furthermore, as the Magisterium of the Church has taught repeatedly, direct sterilization of the male or female, whether permanent or temporary, is equally to be condemned.”
“Similarly there must be a rejection of all acts that attempt to impede procreation, both those chosen as means to an end and those chosen as ends. This includes acts that precede intercourse, acts that accompany intercourse, and acts that are directed to the natural consequences of intercourse” (HV 14) [14] (FC 32) [15].
The Winnipeg Statement
Compare this with what the Canadian bishops said in their Winnipeg statement of 27 September 1968:
“#26 Counselors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principle of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”
The Church teaches that the prohibition against artificial contraception is a moral absolute. The Canadian bishops, on the other hand, say that there are circumstances in which the parties may use contraceptives. It is precisely as though they had said, “Canadian Catholics may in some circumstances commit fornication or adultery or sodomy.”
“Seems right to him…” We must seek the truth. We do not determine the rightness or wrongness of contraception, sterilization, homosexual acts, fornication or adultery. Only God determines moral principles. Where there is clear teaching by the Church, we must accept that teaching and inform our conscience with that teaching. It is only in gray areas, where there is no clear position taken by the Church, that we must honestly choose the course which seems right, as best we can determine the right.
The way #26 reads, anyone can decide for himself the morality of an act, and then do the act in good conscience. This is not following a well-informed conscience. This is making up my own mind and telling the conscience to accept my decision and come along. This is what Adam and Eve did. But conscience is never a teacher; it is always a pupil.
An erroneous conscience is an erroneous conscience. It is not a correct conscience. There is no moral equivalence between the two. There is no moral equivalence between truth and error, good and evil. A willfully erroneous conscience, where ignorance is not invincible, is objectively wrong and culpable.
If a person tries to keep a moral principle, or moral norm, but fails because of human weakness, we can praise his efforts to keep the moral principle. But we cannot praise his failing, or his offending against the moral principle. Murder is always wrong. Fornication is always wrong. Homosexual acts are always wrong. Contraception is also always wrong.
We do not help a person by attempting to change the moral principles. Rather than lowering the bar of moral standards, we are to encourage others, and ourselves, to measure up to the standard. Moral standards are good for us, not harmful. Physical exercise may be painful and vexing; but it is objectively good for us. Similarly, all moral standards are good for us; troublesome, yes; sometimes difficult, but always good for us.
Source: A Search for the Truth: Did Pope Paul VI Approve the Winnipeg Statement? by Msgr. Vincent Foy (Toronto, Life Ethics Information Centre: 1997)
Follow-up Statement on Conscience by Canadian Bishops
On 12 December 1973 the Canadian Catholic Conference issued their “Statement on the Formation of Conscience.” They gave clarifications and, in effect, moved away from the Winnipeg Statement. However, they have not formally rejected the Winnipeg Statement. A few excerpts of the 1973 document will illustrate their distancing themselves from their 1968 document.
In section #8 there is a recognition of God as a law-giver: “For anyone to accept the idea of conscience, as we here present it, he must begin by agreeing that man is not lord of the universe and that man is subject to a law-giver who is greater than he is. In a word, we must begin with that very first basis of any moral life … the acceptance of God.”
The document lists three types of conscience: 1) complacent, or lazy in seeking the reasons behind moral norms; 2) excessively dynamic and revolutionary and 3) the Christian conscience. The excessively dynamic conscience is described as “the person who has totally misread the idea that everyone must ultimately be the judge, before God, of his actions and that in the ultimate decision he must make up his own mind. The persons in this category have distorted an appeal to intelligent decision into a destruction of law, objective structures, and have arrived at the conclusion that no one can tell them what to do, including the Church. It is seldom stated this way but it is where this type of exaggerated subjectivism necessarily leads” (# 21).
The ideal Christian conscience “leads us to have a responsible attitude to someone, to Jesus, to the community, to the Church, etc. Every person who fits into this category feels a responsibility for a progressive search and striving to live out a life ideal according to the mind of Christ” (# 22).
With regard to the Magisterium, “to ‘follow one’s conscience’ and to remain a Catholic, one must take into account first and foremost the teaching of the Magisterium. When doubt arises due to a conflict of ‘my’ views and those of the Magisterium, the presumption of truth lies on the part of the Magisterium. ‘In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra’ (LG 25) [16] . And this must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of individual theologians or individual priests, however intelligent or persuasive” (# 41).
Source: Statement on the FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE, issued by the Canadian Bishops (Daughters of St. Paul: 1974).
God Decides What Is Right and Wrong (Veritatis Splendor)
Human freedom is recognized as vitally important for human dignity and human acts. But there are limits to freedom, and these limits are set by the truth. Veritatis splendor [17] explains certain novel interpretations of the relationship of freedom to the moral law, to human nature and to conscience. In the section “Freedom and Law” we find the teaching that only God determines what is right and wrong.
“In the Book of Genesis we read: ‘The Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die ‘ (Gen 2:16-17).
“With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God’s commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat ‘of every tree of the garden.’ But his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfillment precisely in the acceptance of that law. God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good to man in the commandments” (VS 35) [18].
“In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God’s eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness (cf. FC 33-4) [19] ” (VS 95b) [20].
God Gives Moral Law to the Church
Christ established the Church to continue His work. The Church is a “sacrament (sign and instrument) of intimate communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race” (LG 1) [21]. The Church is both a mother and a teacher.
“As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm that must guide the responsible transmission of life. The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (FC 33a) [22].
“As Mother, the Church is close to the many married couples who find themselves in difficulty over this important point of the moral life: she knows well their situation, which is often very arduous and at times truly tormented by difficulties of every kind, not only individual difficulties but social ones as well. She knows that many couples encounter difficulties not only in the concrete fulfillment of the moral norm but even in understanding its inherent values” (FC 33b) [23].
“But it is one and the same Church that is both Teacher and Mother. And so the Church never ceases to exhort and encourage all to resolve whatever conjugal difficulties may arise without ever falsifying or compromising the truth. She is convinced that there can be no true contradiction between the divine law on transmitting life and that on fostering authentic married love (GS 51) [24]. Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it. With the same conviction as my predecessor, I therefore repeat: ‘To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls’ (HV 29)” [25] (FC 33c)[26].
The Church as Divine Institution and the Holy Father as Vicar of Christ
We look to the teaching Church for moral guidance. The Church was established by Christ to speak (evangelize) and teach (moral principles) on His behalf. The Church must teach the mind and teachings of Christ. She cannot change, or hide them.
The authority to teach within the Church comes from God. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:18).
The Church teaches with authority in matters of faith and morals. The Faith deals with the twelve articles of the Creed and related matters (Part I of the CCC). Morality deals with the Ten Commandments and related matters (part III of the CCC). Faith pertains to what we believe; morals pertain to what we choose and what we do.
Teaching authority is vested most especially in Peter and his successors. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven…” (Mt 16:18-19). “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me. And he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16). Peter does not act or teach on his own authority, but on that of Christ. Peter does not establish the moral law; only Christ can do that. Peter does not add to or subtract from the moral law. He can only teach what he knows to be true, as taught and revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium, both ordinary and extraordinary, is a great blessing for us. By it we know that we are informing our conscience with true moral principles. We can put on the mind of Christ. We can know the good and do it. We can recognize evil and resist it.
Pastoral Obligation to Preach the Truth
“It is your great and manifest mission, and we address especially those of you who are moral theologians – to promote completely and clearly the teachings of the Church concerning marriage. … It is of the utmost importance for safeguarding the peace of souls and the unity of the Christian people, that in moral as in dogmatic matters, all should obey the Magisterium of the Church and should speak with one voice. … We call upon you again with whole heart: ‘I beg you brothers through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: that you might all speak as one and that there might be no division among you: that you may be united in the same mind and the same judgment’ (1 Cor 1:10)” (HV 28a) [27].
“Refusal to compromise anything concerning the saving doctrine of Christ is an outstanding act of charity to souls; yet at the same time it is necessary always to combine this with tolerance and charity. … Therefore, let spouses in their times of trouble find in the speech and hearts of their priests the image of the voice and love of our Redeemer” (HV 29a) [28].
“So, beloved Sons, preach with full confidence and be certain that the Holy Spirit of God, who guides the Magisterium in its teaching, will illuminate the hearts of the faithful and invite them to give their assent. Teach spouses the indispensability of prayer; instruct them properly so that they may come regularly and with great faith to the sacraments of the Eucharist and of penance and that they may never become discouraged because of their weakness” (HV 29c) [29].
Papal Directives to Do More
On 2 October 1999 Pope John Paul II addressed U.S. Bishops from California, Nevada and Hawaii who were making their ad limina visit to Rome. He encouraged them in these words: “As bishops, together with your priests, deacons, seminarians and other pastoral personnel, you must find the right language and imagery to present the teaching of Humanae Vitae in a comprehensive and compelling way.”
The context of this statement is the following: “Give couples the Church’s full teaching on procreation.”
“We are coming to the end of a century which began with confidence in humanity’s prospects of almost unlimited progress, but which is now ending in widespread fear and moral confusion. If we want a springtime of the human spirit, we must rediscover the foundations of hope. Above all, society must learn to embrace once more the great gift of life, to cherish it, to protect it and to defend it against the culture of death, itself an expression of the great fear that stalks our times. One of your most noble tasks as Bishops is to stand firmly on the side of life, encouraging those who defend it and building with them a genuine culture of life.
“The Second Vatican Council was quite aware of the forces shaping contemporary society when it spoke out clearly in defense of human life against the many threats facing it (cf. GS 27) [30]. The Council also made a priceless contribution to the culture of life by its eloquent presentation of the full meaning of married love (cf. GS 48-51)[31]. Following the lead of the Council and expounding its teaching, Pope Paul VI wrote the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which he addressed the moral implications of the power to co-operate with the Creator in bringing new life into the world. The Creator has made man and woman to complement one another in love, and their union is no less a sharing in the creative power of God himself. Conjugal love serves life not only insofar as it generates new life but also because, rightly understood as the total gift of spouses to one another, it shapes the loving and caring context in which new life is wholeheartedly welcomed as a gift of incomparable value.
“Thirty years after Humanae Vitae, we see that mistaken ideas about the individual’s moral autonomy continue to inflict wounds on the consciences of many people and on the life of society. Paul VI pointed out some of the consequences of separating the unitive aspect of conjugal love from its procreative dimension: a gradual weakening of moral discipline; a trivialization of human sexuality; the demeaning of women; marital infidelity, often leading to broken families; State sponsored programs of population control based on imposed contraception and sterilization (HV 17) [32]; the introduction of legalized abortion and euthanasia, ever increasing recourse to in vitro fertilization, and certain forms of genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation are also closely related in law and public policy, as well as in contemporary culture, to the idea of unlimited dominion over one’s body and life.
“The teaching of Humanae Vitae honors married love, promotes the dignity of women and helps couples grow in understanding the truth of their particular path to holiness. It is also a response to contemporary society’s temptation to reduce life to a commodity. As bishops, together with your priests, deacons, seminarians and other pastoral personnel, you must find the right language and imagery to present the teaching of Humanae Vitae in a comprehensive and compelling way. Marriage preparation programs should include an honest and complete presentation of the Church’s teaching on responsible procreation, and should explain the natural methods of regulating fertility, the legitimacy of which is based on respect for the human meaning of sexual intimacy. Couples who have embraced the teaching of Pope Paul VI have discovered that it is truly a source of profound unity and joy, nourished by their increased mutual understanding and respect; they should be invited to share their experience with engaged couples taking part in marriage preparation programs.”
Source: L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, 7 October 1998, p.5
References
[1] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 16
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1778.
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1780.
[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1782.
[5] Papal Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, 63b, John Paul II, Rome August 6, 1993, 63b.
[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1793.
[7] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1783.
[8]Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Article 6, “Moral Conscience,” par. 1785.
[9] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 48a.
[10] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 50a.
[11] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 50b.
[12] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 51a.
[13] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 51b
[14] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 14.
[15] Papal Encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II, Rome, Nov 22, 1981, 32.
[16] Council of Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Rome, Nov 21, 1964, 25.
[17] Papal Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II, Rome, August 6, 1993.
[18] Papal Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II, Rome, August 6, 1993, 35.
[19] Papal Encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II, Rome, Nov 22, 1981, 33-4.
[20] Papal Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II, Rome, August 6, 1993, 95b.
[21] Council of Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Rome, Nov 21, 1964, 1.
[22] Papal Encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II, Rome, Nov 22, 1981, 33a.
[23] Papal Encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II, Rome, Nov 22, 1981, 33b.
[24] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 51
[25] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 29.
[26] Papal Encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II, Rome, Nov 22, 1981, 33c.
[27] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 28a.
[28] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 29a.
[29] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 29c.
[30] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 27.
[31] Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes 48-51.
[32] Papal Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, Rome, July 25, 1968, 17.
Edited reflection from Better by the Dozen Plus Two
by James and Kathleen Littleton
One of my favorite gospels, one of my favorite reality checks, is in the Gospel according to Mark 4:35-41, NAB. It is the story about the disciples crossing the lake with Jesus asleep in the stern. “On that day, as evening drew on, Jesus said to them, ‘Let us cross over to the other side.’” Yes, he wants us all to cross to the other side. But, there is a risk involved. There is a mystery involved. Perhaps it is evening; perhaps it is late. Maybe we are tired, but He wants us to cross to the other side.
“Leaving the crowd behind, they took him, just as he was in the boat.” Yes, leaving the crowd. Leaving the opinion polls, political correctness, the dominant culture, the culture that says one or two children should be enough, acquire more things and you will be happy; the culture that insanely makes a god, an idol, a savior, a religion, an obsession out of politics; the dominant culture that says it’s all about power, prestige, early retirement, spending your final years playing golf, taking it easy, and waiting to die. Then what?
We tend to want to be in control. We want all our ducks to be in a row before we venture out to give God what He wants in our lives. “Lord, let us win the lottery first!” “Let us have all our finances locked in to supposedly be secure that our current children and our possible next child have their private college education fully paid for, and then we will be open to life.” Certainly we can apply prudence in our lives where prudence belongs, but what is often lacking in today’s western culture is faith, and faith entails risk.
Surrendering our comfort zone to our Blessed Lord Jesus includes pain and purification, but for our good. We can not reduce the value of a human life to an illusory sense of control and assurance that we will be able to provide that child a college education and all the “things” we think he needs to be happy and fulfilled.
After all, we do not co-create with God persons who will be totally dependent and useless consumers. No, every person comes into the world with unique gifts to contribute for his own good and for the good of others, and that includes every person, even those with so-called disabilities and illnesses. It is supreme arrogance and lunacy to think that we parents alone somehow possess our children, and are responsible for them all on our own. We must give God His infinite due!
God wants to reach us with His truth and encouragement, even through examples that nature provides around us. What if the majestic trees of the forest were to say, “let us grow in greenhouses as potted plants where we will be safe and comfortable?” They would never mature. Their potential, their mission would never be fulfilled. No, they risk to let their seeds fall where they will and die. Those seeds then take root in the earth where there is dirt, vermin, death, pain, and darkness. Eventually the trees sprout up and reach up for the sun, to the life-giving sun and to the heavens. In order to reach for the sun, there must be a willingness to embrace the inescapable risks and challenges; and while they are reaching up and developing their full potential, fierce storms are mixed in with the sunny tranquil days.
Life is tremendously short. We need to step out, put out into the deep (see Luke 5:4), and make the most of this great gift. God is asking us to be generous in some way according to our possibilities. What is He asking of you? For many could He be asking your openness to having another child, if He so blesses you? You don’t have to have fourteen today. Our Blessed Lord is just asking us to be open, to trust, to be open to having perhaps one more child for now, to make the best of the circumstances and opportunities He is blessing us with today; then to discern the possibility of having yet another child down the road, but never to shut God out of our decision making process, to never definitively marginalize His will. We must always be open to His will. He does not want us to be potted plants.
“They took him with them in the boat just as he was.” We need to take Jesus with us. We need to be with the Lord, and we need to take Jesus just as He is, the Jesus Who loves us, the Jesus Who is Mercy incarnate; and the Jesus who is demanding, who wants the best for us, Who wants us to live life to the fullest without fear.
Our Blessed Lord wants us to put Him first, to be open to the children He wants to bless us with, to put Him and our families above things, above power, above prestige.
“And other boats were with him.” And when we strive to fulfill our mission and gallantly venture out, putting God and His will first, others will be invigorated and emboldened. They will look to our example and find courage to take a risk themselves, to leave fear behind, and to begin to live their lives to the full.
“A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up.” Sure, it can seem difficult to take risks, like a violent squall, to do God’s will, to be open to having a larger family, to die to ourselves, to put our spouse and children before our own pleasure, things, and fears. But these are all opportunities to grow in faith, to grow in love, to exercise and augment our spiritual muscles.
None of us live selflessness perfectly, and my wife, Kathleen and I unquestionably don’t; but God wants us to give our best effort each day, even though we fall short. The growth and love is in the effort and struggle. How could we ever love if there were no opportunities for difficulty or sacrifice? This is God’s work. He is always there to help us.
“Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion.” Sometimes when we follow the Lord and make an effort to do His will it will seem like He is not there, as if He has abandoned us, left us to ourselves, as if He is unaware of our dire situation. But the truth is, He is always there, aware of and supremely interested in every detail of our lives, always caring, and always in absolute command, even when He is asleep. Venerable Archbishop Luis Martinez wrote a beautiful, extensive meditation on this very gospel passage. It has been printed in English under the title When Jesus Sleeps. It is a beautiful book, a beautiful meditation. I hope you will get a copy.
“They woke him and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?’” Yes, He cares, but He permits situations in our lives that take us out of our comfort zones. These are opportunities for us to grow in love, faith, hope, and virtue; to be transformed more into Jesus. God is our infinitely loving Father. A good parent will not continue to hold his child’s hand to cross the street as the child grows into his teens, twenties, thirties, and forties. A good parent knows when it is time to encourage the child to venture forth on his own.
When a parent teaches his child to swim, will the child not complain, “Don’t let go. I’m afraid! I’ll drown! “ But, the parent helps and encourages the child to take the risk, and when the child discovers he can stay afloat on the water through his trepid, but gallant efforts, he is proud as can be! All along the parent was there to save the child if he went under, although the child could not perhaps perceive it at the time, being so preoccupied with his fears, challenges, and efforts at hand. The child would never develop, never mature, never be capable of any grand accomplishments unless the parent permitted him to take risks, to step out of his comfort zone, his bubble, to accomplish something.
Our Heavenly Father is like this with us because He loves us, and is willing to do what is best for us regardless of our protests, thanks be to God. If it was up to us we would stay forever in our comfort zone, but God loves us too much for that; so He is always encouraging us through providential circumstances, events, disasters, and people in our lives to trust Him more, to take risks, to accept, and embrace difficulties and even tragedies in our lives, so we can grow and mature, and make the most of our lives.
“He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still!’ The wind ceased and there was great calm.” Yes, the Lord, with a word can quiet a storm on a lake. And if we permit him, He can calm the worst storm, the Category 5 Hurricane that rages in our interior when we don’t have Jesus in the boat of our soul. Do you think there are storms in your life that are currently raging or yet to come that are beyond our blessed Lord’s power? Be convinced, there is nothing that will ever happen or can ever happen that is beyond the power and control of our loving and merciful God. Listen, we are invincible when we take Jesus into our boat. Nothing can harm us when Jesus is in our boat, nothing! Don’t doubt. Count on this!
“Then he asked them, ‘Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?’”
Why do we not yet have faith, a real faith that is relevant to our daily lives? Why not yet? Why don’t we sufficiently trust and believe in God? If we take the time to reflect, we will see the innumerable times that our merciful Father has cared for and protected us. We only need a little supernatural eyesight that is enhanced through prayer, and the sacraments, in order to be able to grasp this reality. How many times does our Blessed Lord have to intervene for us, to provide for us, to show His love for us, before we will stop the interior storm of being terrified, before we will truly have faith, a living deep faith that continuously permeates every aspect of our lives, before we will be free to live our life to its fullest joyful potential?
We need to ask God, to give Him permission to bequest us with an unshakeable faith. This is God’s work, but we must offer Him our consent, and cooperate with His graces. When much is given, much is expected (see Luke 12:48). With this kind of faith built on rock (see Luke 6:48), we are capable of living our mission in life to the full for our good and the good of others. We leave impotent mediocrity behind. What a magnificent adventure our life becomes when we leave fear behind and have faith.
“They were filled with great awe and said to one another, ‘Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?’” Who is this? It is Jesus, our Lord, our Creator, our Savior, and He is in command. He knows what will become of us. He always wants our good, and will always arrange things for our benefit.
There is really only one power that can stand in the way of God’s will. What is that power? What could we say is the power that is virtually equal to God himself? It is the power of a gift He has given us. This is an awesome, but fearsome power. And it is so powerful because it is so absolute. It is absolute because God himself has given it to us and He will never revoke His gifts. He is faithful and true. (see: Revelation 19: 1) And this gift, that will never be revoked, this gift that is so awesome and fearsome, is the gift of our free will.
This is why we must pray, and pray some more, for the grace of God’s help to exercise this power, this free will in accordance with Almighty God’s will. His will is always for our good and the good of others. And in order to exercise our free will in line with God’s transcendent will, we must be a courageous, faith filled, grace filled people.
Really the safest way, the most efficacious way, to exercise this awesome and fearsome gift of free will is to surrender and abandon ourselves to God’s most holy will. Then God will providentially, lovingly rattle us out of our confusion and fear. He will empower us to take risks for the good. He will give us His supernatural vision to fall in line with His perfect hierarchy of values, to put God and His things first, then our spouse, then our children, then our work and service. We have to die to our old selves and to be risen with Christ so we can live Christ. (see Philippians 1:21)
Kathleen and I have many times been challenged about the size of our family by people, even by relatives, who were often concerned and perhaps had the best of intentions. One of the greatest means of persuasion to help them understand that our choice to have a large family was right and good and in accordance with God’s will would be to take out a picture of our complete family, or to point the children out if they are near by. Then I would ask which of these children should have been our last? Where should we have stopped? Which of these children should not have been born? Which of these children do you think has been brought into existence in opposition to God’s will? I will ask this in a charitable tone. Although I have seldom, if ever, experienced the person who has challenged the size of my family declare that they were wrong, and that they were now in full agreement with our radical openness to life and trust in God, I believe my challenging premise does put things into perspective and cause the person to reflect more deeply on the subject.
I have yet to have someone answer this question by maintaining that Kathleen and I should have stopped at a particular child. This has never happened because of the grave reality that such a response would imply. By virtue of their failure to answer this question by selecting particular beautiful and unique children to have never existed, implies that the challenge to our family’s size does not hold merit. To select a point at which we should have ceased the prayerful discernment and living of God’s will in regard to openness to life in our marriage, would be to imply that the children born after that point would have been better off not existing, and that the world is better off without them. How could anyone sincerely and in good conscience make such a statement?
The whole idea of overpopulation is a myth. Anyone who has flown in a plane or taken a drive in the country can clearly see that densely populated areas are minuscule compared to the vast, open, sparsely inhabited land. Look at the grave damage done to so many countries, especially in the western world, where the average completed family size is well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children. There are grave societal and economic consequences of this. The consequences being currently experienced are only the tip of the iceberg compared with those potentially to come.
One example is the growing percentage of elderly compared to younger working adults producing and paying taxes. There is an ever increasing motive in society to attempt to rationalize euthanasia. The prevalent culture of death, the abortion and contraception mentality, breeds more and more selfishness and self-centeredness in the individual and in society, which results in increased fear. This is a volatile and disordered recipe for evils such as abortion, euthanasia, and wars to flourish. Take this as certain.
When a culture pushes God’s gifts and His will aside, it pushes God aside. When we are left to ourselves, we encounter disaster. God does not impose himself on us as He completely respects our free will, but we are made free in order to choose to do what we ought, to choose God and His will and truth. We cannot remain locked up in our fears and self-centeredness and expect to live happy and fulfilled lives. Although it can seem challenging and difficult to trust God, to take risks, to step out of our comfort zone, to do God’s will, this is what truly brings us happiness, fulfillment, and peace.
I recognize that many parents who are trying very hard complain that they are struggling with perhaps one, two, or three young children, and are therefore very concerned about having another. I have nothing but compassion and love for them in their struggles and concerns. But I care about what is best for them, and I like to encourage these parents with the reality check that their young children will not always be little. The little ones do grow and become more mature, becoming more capable of helping around the house and with the new little ones to come. God really has thought all these things out in His great and generous plan for life. We have found also that as we have grown older, having less energy than when we were younger, God has blessed us with older children now who can appreciably help with responsibilities around the house and with the children.
How did we end up having nineteen children? Well I can assure you of one thing. We never would have had this many if it were not for the gift of our faith in God, a God who always provides what is truly necessary, a God who tells us not to worry: “Set your hearts on his kingdom first, and on his righteousness, and all these other things will be given you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow: tomorrow will take care of itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matthew 6:16, JB)
Thanks Given to Our Lady for Closure of Last Abortion Office in Corpus Christi
by Joseph Meaney, POSTED ON JUN 18, 2014
The beautiful port city of Corpus Christi in Texas will have a special celebration of its feast day this weekend. For the first time in 37 years there will be no facilities committing abortions in the city!
At one time in Corpus Christi there were three abortion mills in operation and nine abortionists in this city of over 300,000 people. But the last of these deadly offices, that of Eduardo Aquino, is now closed.
Catholic pro-lifers credit the Mother of God for this triumph of life over the culture of death, along with innumerable prayers over the years. Corpus Christi Bishop Emeritus Rene H. Gracida was particularly touched that the facility’s closure came on his birthday, June 9. Bishop Gracida, who was a national leader in the fight against abortion, came to pray with the icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa in front of the abortion center when she visited Corpus Christi earlier this year. It is also true that Christians of various denominations have been praying with Catholics for these clinics to shut down for decades – this is truly a team effort of prayer and trust in God’s grace.
Human Life International’s Father Peter West led a special prayer with the icon outside Aquino’s office during the hours in which abortions were committed there. There was a dramatic confrontation with Aquino and his staff and over forty mothers there for abortions. Two women turned away and did not go into the abortion center, but others screamed and raged against the pro-lifers.
This is not the first time that pro-lifers in Corpus Christi credit Our Lady with shutting a local abortion mill down. Over ten years ago the pilgrim image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was brought to Corpus Christi by pro-lifers and the faithful prayed with her outside another abortion business with a special intention that the place would close its doors forever. Exactly one year later they brought Our Lady of Guadalupe back and discovered that the office had been sold and no further abortions would take place there.
Dr. Francette Meaney, who has led pro-life efforts in Corpus Christi for almost four decades, rejoiced saying, “We thank Mother Mary in her icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa for this blessing. Dr. Aquino performed 2,000 abortions a year here and now the city named for the Body of Christ will be a place where all children have a chance to have a birthday.”
In fact, with this closure there are no abortion centers south of San Antonio, meaning 300 miles of South Texas are abortion-free. This is part of a dramatic trend.
Since December 2010 the number of abortion businesses in Texas has dropped from 41 to 22. The Texas state government has passed a series of laws in recent years which have made a big impact on the availability of abortion. Women seeking abortion in Texas must now be given a sonogram and information about the development of their preborn child, as well as the full facts about the risks associated with abortion.
Offices that commit abortions must also now meet the same safety standards that normal ambulatory surgical centers are required to possess, and abortionists now need admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion business.
With consistent peaceful, prayerful witness at abortion facilities, and a strong pro-life majority with the political will and ability act, good things can happen. As the saying goes: Work as if everything depends on you, pray as if everything depends on God.
But as we know, the fight to stop abortion does not end merely with shutting down offices – we must also help women who have unexpected pregnancies and don’t know where to turn.
There are several centers in Corpus Christi that help mothers with crisis pregnancies. Some pro-lifers there are hoping to buy the property where the last abortion facility in Corpus Christi was located and turn it into a pro-life memorial center that will also conduct pro-life counseling. Human Life International’s affiliate in Austria did something similar a few years ago: opening a crisis pregnancy center with a chapel in a former abortion facility – one they helped to close in Vienna with prayers and sidewalk counseling.
Pro-lifers in Corpus Christi plan to place a large statue of Our Lady on the roof of the new center with prayers of reparation for the thousands of children who were killed there.
Please continue to pray through the intercession of Our Lady (http://www.hli.org/hli_campaigns/ocean-ocean-pilgrimage/) for the end of abortion around the world!
Bishop Schneider: Church faces ‘great crisis’ as she’s tempted to conform to the ‘new paganism’
BY HILARY WHITE, Thu Jun 12, 2014
LONDON, June 12, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Church is living through a “great crisis” of belief and practice, facing a “new paganism” comparable to the first centuries of the Church, and in which many priests and bishops are actively collaborating, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan, said in an interview during a trip to the UK.
The bishop said the crisis has particularly manifested itself in the erosion of belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which he says has a “causal connection” to the denial of the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage.
“This is the deepest evil,” says Schneider, “man, or the clergy, putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy and when they change the revealed truth of God, for instance, concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.”
The bishop’s interview was conducted by Sarah Atkinson andpublished June 6 in the Catholic Herald. Atkinson is also editor of Mass of Ages, the magazine published by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, which published the full transcript.
“We are living in an un-Christian society, in a new paganism,” Schneider told Atkinson. “The temptation today for the clergy is to adapt to the new world to the new paganism, to be collaborationists. We are in a similar situation to the first centuries, when the majority of the society was pagan, and Christianity was discriminated against.”
He warned that Christians will likely be faced again with the choice of apostasy, offered to those in the early Church, to pinch “one grain of incense into a fire in front of the statue of the emperor.” This ultimatum may even be supported from within the Church.
It seems possible that Catholics who remain faithful “may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who [have] power in the exterior structures of the Church,” he said.
“Unfortunately there were in the first century members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned.”
In our times, he said, clergy and bishops are not being asked to pinch incense to the emperor, but “to collaborate with the pagan world today in this dissolution of the Sixth Commandment and in the revision of the way God created man and woman.” These clergy, he said, would be “traitors of the Faith; they are participating ultimately in pagan sacrifice.”
Asked whether he foresaw “a split coming in the Church,” he responded, “Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly.”
“When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith.” This split, he said, will be between those who remain faithful “to the unchangeable Catholic truth” and those “who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think.”
“I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy.”
Bishop Schneider had particularly strong words for the prelates supporting the proposal by Cardinal Walter Kasper to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion “after a period of penance.” These, he said, “operate with a false concept of mercy.” He compared it to a doctor prescribing sugar for a diabetic “although he knows it will kill him. But the soul is more important than the body.”
“If the bishops admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, then they are confirming them in their errors in the sight of God. They will even close down the voice of their conscience. They will push them more into the irregular situation only for the sake of this temporal life, forgetting that after this life, though, there is the judgment of God.”
“I hope the majority of the bishops [at the Synod] still have so much Catholic spirit and faith that they will reject the above mentioned proposal and not accept this.”
“I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church,” said Schneider.
“The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism, forgetting the Christocentrism.” It comes “when we place ourselves, including the priests, at the centre and when God is put in the corner and this is happening also materially.”
“Our first duty as human beings is to adore God, not us, but Him. Unfortunately, the liturgical practice of the last 40 years has been very anthropocentric,” he said.
“The gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy,” he said, will ultimately be defeated by “the Supreme Magisterium” of the Church, which “will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family.” Those who have opposed the true teaching of the Church, he added, would then leave and no longer call themselves Catholic.
He said that he was encouraged by the “purity” of the faith of some of the Catholic students he addressed at Oxford University on his trip, saying that these “little ones” of the Church, though they have been “let down and neglected” are the ones who have the “real power” granted to them by Christ Himself.
“I am not worried about the future,” he said. “The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and He is powerful. However we are now experiencing a deep crisis in the Church as it happened several times in two thousand years.”
“We will see the rising of a renewed Church,” he predicted. “This is already preparing. Then this liberal clerical edifice will crash down because they have roots and no fruits.”
Contraception, Rights, and Total State Control
By James V. Schall, S.J., June 08, 2014
Charles E. Rice’s new book argues that once absolute relativism is established as the state “religion” there is no limit to what the state can and will do
“There are many paths to total state control of life—fascism, totalitarianism, communism. In the United States the path is labeled protection of individual human rights.”
— Charles E. Rice, Contraception & Persecution (2014), 86.
I.
Contraception & Persecution is a brief, blunt analysis of our polity. It presents a clear line of thought to explain, to those who will listen, the totalitarian nature of our present regime. This regime no longer follows the basic moral and philosophic premises of its founding. Nor does it acknowledge the basic human good by which any regime is limited. Indeed, Rice argues that the American founding itself, for all its genius, was flawed. It recognized no authentic interpreter of the natural law that was presupposed from Christian and classic sources by those who established this republic.
Eventually, this lack of an authoritative interpreter meant that the state itself would become the sole arbitrator of what was the human good. The state itself came to be the highest law. It would recognize no other authority but itself; no one could appeal to a higher law. As a people we are reluctant to admit that things could go so wrong. We are comfortable and hate to think things have so radically deviated from any true human good. The result is that we do not take seriously the intellectual nature of our obvious decline into an increasingly anti-human state.
Through the interpretation of the courts, the lack of understanding or resistance by Congress, and the multiplicity of arbitrary decrees now stemming from the Executive, this founding flaw has solidified itself as the ruling doctrine of the public order—“whatever the prince wills is the law”—to cite the classic Roman Law dictum designating the state with no limits.
Basically, we have established absolute relativism as the state “religion.”
Of its very nature, this state brooks no opposition. It has no authority higher than itself. It is now in the process of overturning all the tenets of classical familial and the public order stemming from it. Step by step, this all-powerful state disallows and subjects to punishment any criticism of its agenda or scope. All of this absolutism is imposed on the citizens, often with their consent, in the name of “rights”. The avenue by which these “rights” have gained full control of the civil power in all its branches is through an unproven and unprovable denial. That is, it arbitrarily affirms that no order exists in nature that would or could indicate what we, as human beings, really are, and how we ought to live and act for our own good.
In this light, the title of Rice’s book will at first seem odd—Contraception & Persecution—what, pray tell, has contraception to do with persecution? As it turns out, everything. In a book that serves as a companion and corroboration of Robert R. Reilly’s Making Gay Okay (see my review essay, “Homosexuality and the Logic of a Disordered Polity”), Professor Rice spells out both the legal and philosophical steps by which the limits that were intended to protect us from the absolute state and its “ruling classes” have now been mostly eliminated. We live in an almost unrecognizable polity in which no limits can be assigned to the government. No area of life exists over which the state at any level cannot and does not claim immediate jurisdiction and coercive power. Even our very words are increasingly controlled by “hate language” laws that the state imposes to guarantee its version of “rights”.
But this democratic acceptance of totalitarian principles is not the cause of our problem. It is rather the result of disorders of soul. Rice is quite frank—he recognizes the widespread and often defining participation of Catholics voices and leaders in this new polity. They are not only judges and politicians, but also bishops and even elements in the Vatican. They have failed to provide intellectual and moral leadership; they did not (or would not) foresee what eventually is at stake in our culture, even though it was in the logic of civil disorder from the beginning. We find a great lack of the intellectual courage of which Plato spoke so highly.
It will, no doubt, be thought absurd by many that issues of morality could undermine a republic, even though classical authors have held this possibility from the beginning of our culture. Rice begins with the obvious fact that we have mostly replaced the legal and moral idea that the purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to form a family in which children can be begotten, born, and raised by their own parents for the continuation of our kind in this world. The love of spouses goes along with this purpose; it must remain open to human life at the cost of undermining love itself. Rice argues that, historically, most of the Christian people and their institutions understood this connection. But with the entrance of birth control approval by the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930, a fatal separation of love and children was established. What we have seen in the eighty years after this conference is a carrying out of its logical consequences in our customs and laws.
If there is no necessary connection between children and the marital relation of a man and a woman in their relation to each other, what follows is that any sort of relationship, whether fertile or not, becomes legitimate. For the very act of contraception, in whatever form it takes, establishes the principle that sex need not be related to children in any way. This naturally and necessarily infertile condition is intrinsic to the homosexual relation. The kind of legal “marriage” it now claims as a “right” is at best a settlement about property. It can never provide what children really want and need, that is, a father and a mother in a stable relationship of caring for one another. But next we allow, as we have allowed, the basic begetting to be ruled by scientists and technicians. Children are begotten and designed outside the womb. The care of such children becomes highly ambiguous. Are they but subjects of the state?
If children are a product, not of the relation of a man and a woman, but of control of their ova and sperm by technicians, the latter, in the name of science, can “experiment”. Perhaps, as even Plato speculated, they can produce better human beings if they have no direct relation to their proper father and mother. Much of what we are seeing, of course, was anticipated by Plato and in the last century by Aldus Huxley in his Brave New World, published in 1932. But these men were aware of the dangers such practices entailed. We, however, seem oblivious.
II.
Rice is very good at showing how finely things put together by God and nature belong together. What we know as human nature itself is not some arbitrary collection of parts. It is an intricately woven person with a body, and a soul that vivifies it. Through the soul it has intellection to see what it is and how to guide it. Moreover, as both the fine Introduction and Preface of this book point out, the full understanding of what human life is—its relation to God and family—has not been well preached or understood. There has been a strange reluctance to challenge the on-going ethos of our time, an ethos that has been undermining what it is that men and women really are, want, and need.
Perhaps the main point of Rice’s book is the realization that each conceived human person, whether allowed to live or not, is created for eternal life, though in his life and deeds he can reject that for which he exists. This purpose of man’s being will not change. In this context, those responsible for undermining the conditions or life of actual human beings are the focus of both the divine mercy and the divine judgment.
Again, the disorder of polity follows from disorder of soul. But once we set our foot on a deviant step away from the human good, we will find that the next and more deviant step immediately confronts us until we have, in the name of our “rights,” succeeded to undermine the whole moral and political order. The arguments and positions by which courts, legislators, and executives use to justify their new “rights” to divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, and human experimentation are all posed in the name of something noble: individual rights. But they actually each lead to a greater disorder in the human body and soul, in the body politic.
“Rights”, of course, are the modern heritage of Hobbes and Locke. At first, they look like another way to express human dignity. But they begin by postulating a lone individual, not an actual individual who is born into a family. “Rights” are still proposed in the name of the individual good even when they include abortion and the deprivation of children of proper homes and parents.
“Rights”, then, are what are “due” to me. No one but me can tell what is due to me. Therefore, society and state have a duty to support me in what I want for myself, since that is my “right”. And if I have a “right” to something, it is ultimately the state that must guarantee that “right” to me. But when the state is the ultimate guarantor of my rights, it is also the one that decides which of my “rights” it will enforce. That is, it rules me by my “rights”.
In this context, there is only one “wrong”—the claim that some objective order exists to which and on which true human dignity and happiness exist. This claim is now looked upon as fanatic or totalitarian. It forms the basis on which the state now increasingly proposes to control religion and philosophy, which become themselves functions of the state and its purposes.
Rice argues that the real issue is the first commandment, whether we will first worship God or ourselves. He sees that efforts to replace marriage are themselves implicitly attacks on the Godhead from whom order exists in things, including human things. This view probably explains why religion must be reduced to a function of the state. Religion must be only a kind of subjective private activity that goes on in out of the way places we call “churches”.
We no longer care what goes on in the places of worship we allow to exist. But nothing that goes on there can have any effect in the public order. No religion can be exempt from what the law requires men to do or hold. Conscience is at best purely subjective.
What does not conform to what the state decrees has no “rights”. This is the effect, as Rice shows, of the HHS mandate. Rice rightly sees these thought processes and laws as the context of increasing persecution by the state of religion. The only caveat I would make with this thesis is that it is not really an issue of religion but of reason. It is no accident that the main line of defense of reason in the world today is the Catholic Church in so far as it remains loyal to its own tradition, which many Catholics have chosen to not do. But it is the Catholic tradition that has been the protector of not just revelation but of reason.
In this sense, the contribution of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to reason itself has been unprecedented. The defenders of religion have first to defend man as he is. It is precisely because the advocates of various forms of “rights” want to have another form of human being that they have zeroed in on the Church as it stands for reason.
And it is in the logic of disorder of soul that the state cannot and will not stop its aggrandizing mission until it has eliminated all opposition. This elimination is the context of the persecution that Rice sees everywhere on our immediate horizon. That is, it is already taking place. We do not readily admit that it is the legacy of our own refusal to see the logic of contraception itself and its corroding effects on every institution of society. But the effect of this logic is what animates our public order today. This is what Charles Rice is at pains to point out.
Contraception & Persecution
by Charles E. Rice
St. Augustine’s Press (South Bend), 2014
Hardcover, 128 pages
James V. Schall, S.J. taught political philosophy at Georgetown University until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press). Visit his site, “Another Sort of Learning”, for more about his writings and work.
Why Is Marriage Plunging & Unwed Births Soaring?
By Mike McManus, Marriage Savers
“The American family is falling apart. Consider two grim trends.
The U.S. marriage rate has plunged 57% since 1970, according to ‘The State of Our Unions’ for 2012. Two-thirds of Americans over age 15 used to be married. Now it is only 48%.
The unwed birth rate was only 5% in 1960 and 10.7% in 1970. However, that figure has soared to 40.8% in 2010. In fact, 53% of all births to women under age 30 were to unmarried women.
Ohio’s’s unwed births are higher at 44% and our marriages plunged 34% in 21 years (1990-2011).
What’s gone wrong? ‘Uncle Sugar,’ as Mike Huckabee puts it, is the culprit.
Here’s the standard scenario. Susan gives birth -a happy occasion. An official will ask her: ‘Are you married? Who is the father?’ If the answer is No, the second question is important to government. Bill’s full name and address will be taken down, because he will be assessed for child support.
However, Uncle Sugar has good news for Susan. Her medical expenses of the birth will be covered by Medicaid – as well as future health care for her child for 18 years and for herself. She will begin getting welfare (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) plus food stamps and possibly housing subsidies. If she goes back to work, she’ll get an Earned Income Tax Credit and subsidized day care.
However, if Susan marries Bill, they will lose about $25,000 of benefits.
So guess what? Fewer couples marry and marriage rates fall. More babies are born out of wedlock and government costs soar. The government gets what it pays for.
However, our question is simple: Why is government subsidizing couples to live together rather than to marry? This makes no sense to anyone – to the couple, their child, or to taxpayers who foot the bill.
The cost to taxpayers is immense. One study estimated 41% of cohabiting couples have children – almost the same as 46% of married couples. There were 8 million cohabiting couples in 2013, or about 293,000 in Ohio. If 41% have kids, that’s 120,000.
The cost? A staggering $3 billion to Ohio taxpayers. If they have only one child each.
There were about 4 million births in 2011, 44% of whom were to Ohio’s unmarried parents. Or 60,700 unwed births here at a one-year cost of $1.5 billion.
It is time for Cohabitation Reform. It comes in two parts.
First, the official who asks the unwed mother about the father, must add another question: ‘Are you cohabiting with him? BTW, we need his address and Social Security number. If he has the same address as you, you have access to his income as if you were married. Therefore, you are not eligible for the same benefits given to a single woman.’
What about the 3.3 million cohabiting couples who are already getting those benefits?
If we were running for governor this year in Ohio, California, Texas, New York, or 30 other states, we would pledge ‘Cohabitation Reform’ with a triple goal of increasing marriages, reducing unwed births and slashing government costs.
‘One reason our marriage rate has been dropping and unwed births are rising is that the state subsidizes couples to live together – but not to marry,’ a candidate might say. ‘This makes no sense to anyone. Therefore, if I am elected governor, this state will subsidize unwed couples with children to marry – rather than to cohabit.’
‘Currently, if a cohabiting couple with a child marries, they lose $25,000 of benefits. However, if I am Governor, I will make those couples an offer: if you marry, we will not cut your benefits for two years. After two years, the benefits will taper off over three more years. Married men earn more than cohabiting men, and subsidies are not needed.’
‘However, everyone will be better off. Couples who marry are healthier, wealthier, have more sex and better sex than singles. They even live longer – ten more years for married men, and four years longer for women. Their children do better in school, are far less delinquent or apt to commit suicide and will also live five years longer than children of unmarried parents.’
‘The percentage of Americans who are married will rise. Unwed births will fall – as will the costs of government, by billions of dollars.’
Cohabitation Reform makes everyone a winner – including innovative candidates for governor!
–Mike McManus is President of Marriage Savers
Why normal people should care about ‘baby busts’
BY ANNE MORSE, Thu Jun 12, 2014
June 12, 2014 (POP) – Long, long ago, when Anne’s parents were in college (sorry, mom and dad), demographers made an observation: they saw that for most of human history, even though couples were having far more than two children, mortality was also very high. The result was that populations either stayed the same or grew very slowly.
Then, with the advent of modern medicine, our life expectancy doubled, and then doubled again. And, not unexpectedly, our population doubled, and then doubled again, as well.
Population alarmists saw this doubling as the harbinger of catastrophe: “The world is ending!” “We’ll breed ourselves to death!” “Famine!” “No more personal space!”
But demographers developed a theory: since fertility and mortality had complimented each other for most of human history, and demographers predicted that they would one day soon do so again. Mortality would fall first, and then fertility would follow. After a while, things would be back in balance.
For a while, this theory of the “demographic transition” seemed to work just fine. Countries modernized, mortality fell, and fertility, after a lag, followed the same downward path.
But instead of stabilizing at 2.1 children per couple or so—zero population growth—as the demographers expected, fertility continued to fall.
A growing number countries—Romania, Greece, Japan, Taiwan, and the Ukraine among them—now have fertility rates hovering between 1.1 and 1.4 children per woman.
For the first time in human history, otherwise prosperous and secure societies see their numbers shrinking: Russia is losing 750 people per day. Germany is losing over 600 people per day. Japan is losing 450 per day.
Demographers call this “lowest low” fertility, but they have no idea how “low” it will actually go. Nobody does.
Among the factors driving fertility downward is the radical redefining of human sexuality that has occurred over the past half-century. Don’t blame the demographers for failing to see this coming: it is something new in human history.
Over the last half century, the pill and the sexual revolution have changed the sexual dynamic so dramatically that previous paradigms no longer apply. Economic security and mortality, which once dominated reproductive decisions, now only play small, tertiary roles.
Once upon a time sex produced children—unless you acted to prevent conception. Now, intercourse is expected to be sterile, unless you choose to deviate from the norm and stop contracepting. As Ron Lesthaeghe wrote in the 2010 Population and Development Review “during the first transition, couples chose to adopt contraception in order to avoid pregnancies; during the second, the basic decision is [whether or not] to stop contraception in order to start a pregnancy.”
Sterile sex is the new baseline. In countries going through this second demographic transition, having children is increasingly viewed as aberrant social behavior. This is especially true if a couple is having their second or third child.
The reasoning behind when to have children and how many children to have has changed as well. Couples once asked themselves: “Do we need to space our children right now?” or “How many children can we care for right now?”
This concern about the well-being of one’s present and future children has been replaced by an emphasis on self. As Lesthaeghe wrote, reproduction mainly occurs after, “a prolonged ‘process of self-questioning and self-confrontation by prospective parents. . .in which the pair will weigh a great many issues, including direct costs and opportunity costs, but their guiding light will be the outcome of self-confrontation. Would a conception and having a child be self-fulfilling?”
The population controllers—who are still obsessed with the numbers—are now attempting to impose this indubitably flawed model of sex onto the women of less-developed countries. Perhaps if they gave an honest look at another set of numbers (namely, that half of the world lives in a society with below-replacement fertility) they would acknowledge it as a serious symptom of a larger social change.
Instead, they continue to force this flawed part of our culture on less developed countries. They are undermining marriage, harming children, and compromising the long-term health of society as a result.
Don’t get us wrong. We are not concerned with imploding fertility because we are obsessed with population numbers. In fact, we are bemused as governments attempt to bribe women into having children without realizing that the whole calculus of having children has changed.
We are concerned because imploding fertility has consequences far beyond the number of workers a country may or may not have in a certain year. It reflects a revolutionary sexual and social dynamic that changes everything, not just the number of children borne.
This new dynamic changes the age at which we have kids, whom we have them with, and our relationships with them. It changes the calculus of the long-term monogamous relationships that we call marriage; it means that ever greater percentages of children will grow up without one or more of their biological parents in the house; it isolates more and more people in one-person households; and it leads to more and more divorce.
We have not just lowered our birth rate or changed the way we view sex, we have, in a very real sense, dissolved the glue that holds society together.
That is to say, the family.
Reprinted with permission from POP
Stillborn baby declared ‘dead’ revives 25 minutes later, now 3 months old
BY PETER BAKLINSKI, Tue Jun 10, 2014
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, June 10, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Robin Cyr, 34, was experiencing a birthing mother’s worst possible nightmare. Her baby girl who had done so well during nine months of pregnancy was, after a painful and complicated labor, stillborn.
The tiny baby had been officially declared dead after laying motionless for 25 minutes in the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Robin laid in bed, heartbroken that her baby was gone.
But then something utterly unexpected happened.
Excited nurses came rushing back into the room, breathlessly announcing that the baby had started breathing again.
“Another nurse came over, two minutes later. … She couldn’t talk. She was speechless, and another nurse came over and said, ‘Your baby’s breathing,’” Robin said, reported Metro Halifax.
Doctors could give the mother no explanation for the baby’s recovery.
“He said it’s a miracle,” Robin recounted. “He said, ‘I’m very sorry I gave up on your baby when I did, because I turned around and she’s breathing on her own.”
Now three months later, Robin says that her little Mireya is “doing everything on time.”
“She holds her head up, she turns to your voice, she smiles,” she told Metro Halifax last week.
Robin’s aunt Pearleen Shephard believes that God was in the delivery room that day.
“It’s a miracle, and God is doing his work,” she said. “The doctors took their hands off her. They called it. She was gone. So she truly, truly is a miracle.”
Miss USA contestant says she was conceived in rape
BY NATALIE JOHNSON, Tue Jun 10, 2014
June 10, 2014 (The Daily Signal) – Miss Pennsylvania Valerie Gatto, a contestant on last night’s Miss USA pageant, described herself as a “product of rape” in an interview with TODAY.com. Gatto revealed she was conceived after her mother was raped at knifepoint by a stranger.
Gatto is using her experience and status to educate women about sexual assault and to provide an example of someone who rose above her situation to achieve success.
“I believe God put me here for a reason,” Gatto told TODAY.com. “To inspire people, to encourage them, to give them hope that everything is possible and you can’t let your circumstances define your life.”
Gatto’s mother originally hid the pregnancy from her family and intended on putting her up for adoption, but was dissuaded the night Gatto was born.
“Valerie’s mom told her family about her adoption plans,” Gatto’s biography reads. “But Valerie’s great-grandmother said – God doesn’t give you more than you can handle. Her mother listened and decided to raise Valerie with the help of God and her family.”
Gatto acknowledged that most people would view her situation as negative, but she claims that her close family never “looked at it as something negative.”
“Being a voice is life-changing,” she said. “I’m not sharing this story for publicity. I’m not doing this for any selfish reasons. I truly am doing this to change the world and make a difference.”
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal
New Record Highs in Moral Acceptability
Premarital sex, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia growing in acceptance
by Rebecca Riffkin, May 30, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American public has become more tolerant on a number of moral issues, including premarital sex, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. On a list of 19 major moral issues of the day, Americans express levels of moral acceptance that are as high or higher than in the past on 12 of them, a group that also encompasses social mores such as polygamy, having a child out of wedlock, and divorce.
These 19 issues fall into five groups, ranging from highly acceptable to highly unacceptable. Overall, 11 of the 19 are considered morally acceptable by more than half of Americans. Ninety percent of Americans believe birth control is morally acceptable, putting it into the “highly acceptable” category, which has little moral opposition — the only such issue among the 19. Nine of the other 10 issues with majority acceptance can be put into a “largely acceptable” category, as they have smaller majorities considering them morally acceptable and sizable minorities that consider them morally wrong. Moral agreement with doctor-assisted suicide, though at the majority level this year, is separated from disagreement by fewer than 10 percentage points, and so this issue is considered “contentious.”
Solid majorities of Americans consider seven of the issues morally wrong. Four of these — extramarital affairs, cloning humans, polygamy, and suicide — are considered morally wrong by more than 70% of Americans and fall into the “highly unacceptable” group. Three other issues fall into the “largely unacceptable” category, as smaller majorities of Americans consider them morally wrong, and at least three in 10 consider them morally acceptable.
Abortion receives neither majority support nor majority disapproval, making it the most contentious issue of the 19 tested. The current split is similar to what Gallup measured last year, but is a more even division than the four prior years when at least half said it was morally wrong.
Gallup has tracked Americans’ views on the moral acceptability of 12 of these issues annually since 2001 and the rest annually since 2002 or later. These data are from an overall question asked each year as part of Gallup’s Values and Beliefs poll, the latest of which was conducted May 8-11, 2014.
Americans’ views on the morality of many of these issues have undergone significant changes over time. For example, acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has swelled from 38% in 2002 to majority support since 2010. Fifty-three percent of Americans in 2001 and 2002 said sex between an unmarried man and woman was morally acceptable, but this year it is among the most widely accepted issues, at 66%. Similarly, fewer than half of Americans in 2002 considered having a baby outside of wedlock morally acceptable, but in the past two years, acceptance has been at or near 60%.
Additionally, a few widely condemned actions, such as polygamy, have become slightly less taboo. Five percent of Americans viewed polygamy as morally acceptable in 2006, but that is now at 14%. The rise could be attributed to polygamist families being the subject of television shows — with the HBO TV show “Big Love” one example — thus removing some of the stigma.
Republicans and Democrats Divided on Moral Acceptability of Several Issues
Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have differing views of the morality of several issues. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to consider issues like divorce, gambling, medical research using embryos, and having a baby outside of wedlock morally acceptable. But Republicans are more likely than Democrats to see wearing fur, the death penalty, and medical testing on animals as morally acceptable. Independents tend to fall in the middle of the two groups.
In the 12 years Gallup has asked this overall question, Democrats have become significantly more tolerant on many issues, while independents generally show a smaller shift in the same direction and Republicans’ views have changed little. The percentage of Democrats who say an issue is morally acceptable has increased for 10 issues, including abortion, sex between an unmarried man and woman, extramarital affairs, cloning humans, divorce, cloning animals, suicide, research using stem cells from human embryos, polygamy, and gay and lesbian relations.
In some cases, the change among Democrats has been substantial. For example, in 2003, 52% of Democrats said having a baby outside of wedlock was morally acceptable, and 40% of Republicans and 61% of independents agreed. This year, 72% of Democrats, a 20-percentage-point increase, say it is morally acceptable. Meanwhile, Republicans have seen no change, with 40% still saying it is morally acceptable, although a higher 50% viewed it as morally acceptable last year. Independents have also not seen a change, with 60% saying having a baby out of wedlock is morally acceptable this year.
Republicans are slightly more accepting of gay and lesbian relations, sex between an unmarried man and woman, and divorce than they were in 2001, when these questions were first asked. Independents’ views on the first two issues (but not divorce) also have seen small shifts, but neither group has seen changes as drastic as those among Democrats.
Bottom Line
Americans largely agree about the morality of several issues. Most say birth control is acceptable but that extramarital affairs are wrong. However, other issues show clear, substantial divides. These differences are largely explained by party identification, but previous research has shown that age also plays a factor.
Attitudes about the morality of these behaviors have in many instances changed over the past 13 years, especially among Democrats, and Americans are
Three Planned Parenthood offices to close in Oregon and Washington
BY BEN JOHNSON, Wed Jun 04, 2014
CLACKAMAS, OR, June 4, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Planned Parenthood affiliate has announced that, in order to remain financially viable, it is closing three offices in the Pacific Northwest and laying off employees at its remaining locations.
Stacy Cross, CEO of Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette, which covers Oregon and part of Washington State, said in a press release that the action is “necessary in order to maintain a fiscally solvent operation that continues to keep our doors open to patients in our region for the long-term.”
The organization has closed its centers in Clackamas and Gresham, Oregon, as well as its office in Salmon Creek, Washington.
Dan Kennedy of Human Life of Washington told LifeSiteNews, “Human Life is delighted that the killing business is losing ‘customers.’”
“As the nation becomes more pro-life, we anticipate seeing more of this,” he said. “This is good news for women, men, and children in the womb.”
Oregon Right to Life said on its Facebook page that the closures would save babies’ lives. “Considering those areas are already serviced by crisis pregnancy centers, we are confident that life will be chosen by Oregon women even more than ever!”
The group’s executive director, Gayle Attebury, told The Oregonian the closure was “a pleasant surprise” necessitated by the fact that the abortion providers “aren’t getting the business they’d like.”
Following the recent trend of Planned Parenthood closures and mergers, the closed facilities offered abortion referrals and the morning after pill but did not perform abortions themselves.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which was long institutionally tied to Planned Parenthood,abortion rates fell in 2011 to their lowest level since Roe v. Wade.
Cross said some employees at the affiliate’s six remaining offices – in Beaverton, Bend, Salem, Vancouver, and two offices in Portland – will be fired for economic reasons.
“We are confident that with this realignment of resources, we can evolve our health care practices to create a sustainable model for patients today and the future,” Cross said.
Vatican Secretary of State: Welcome the ‘children whom God wants to give to you’
BY COLIN KERR, Thu Jun 05, 2014
WARSAW, Poland, June 5, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) –– The Vatican’s Secretary of State has urged Poles to trust Divine Providence and welcome the “children whom God wants to give you.”
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who was in Poland to mark its twenty-five years of freedom from communist rule, challenged the nation’s people to embrace St. John Paul II’s teachings on the family.
In remarks reported by the Polish Catholic weekly Niedziela, the cardinal said: “Courage! God does not take away anything, but fills us with grace if we trust him. I encourage you to entrust yourselves to Divine Providence and not be afraid of accepting [the] children whom God wants to give to you.”
“Let your nation still give birth to new saints. They will decide about the fate of your homeland! They are also needed by the Church and the world,” he said.
Parolin’s comments were reminiscent of strong words from Pope Francis in a homily he delivered on Monday to fifteen couples celebrating wedding anniversaries. The pope said that the practice of rejecting fertility by choice for the sake of comfort is something that “Jesus does not like.”
“Marriages, in which the spouses do not want children, in which the spouses want to remain without fertility. This culture of well-being from ten years ago convinced us: ‘It’s better not to have children! It’s better! You can go explore the world, go on holiday, you can have a villa in the countryside, you can be care-free,” the pope said. “It is not fruitful, it does not do what Jesus does with his Church: He makes His Church fruitful.”
Parolin’s visit to Poland also commemorated twenty-five years of renewed diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Poland. He used the occasion to urge the faithful to remember the example and teaching of two great figures of the 20th century: St. John Paul II and Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński. Wyszyński served as primate of Poland from 1948 to 1981.
Parolin’s remarks come at a time when Poland faces significant demographic problems. Although it is one of the most Catholic countries in the world, Poland has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world – 1.33 children born per woman, according to the CIA World Factbook.
The cardinal referred to the occasion as “the 25th anniversary of the revival of your Homeland,” and linked this renewal to the family specifically. “Dear friends, dear families, do not be afraid of holiness! How important it is today for the Christian families to be holy. Let them be a place, where one can experience God’s love to all people. I am aware that in Poland there are many testimonies of holy families, faithful to Christ and Church,” he said.
The cardinal added that he “is aware of difficulties which are faced by families, which want to open up to life and remain faithful to the marital covenant till the end. The last word does not belong to those who proclaim the end of the traditional family, but to Divine Providence which realizes its plans through the family.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 1652 that, “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
It also states in paragraph 1653 that “the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.”
In paragraph 2373, the Catechism states: “Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.”
Gosnell: One Year Later
On May 13, 2014, Americans United for Life’s President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest, and General Counsel Ovide M. Lamontagne, J.D. spoke alongside legal and medical experts at an panel hosted by The Heritage Foundation on the one-year anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortionist, Kermit Gosnell. Other speakers included Byron Calhoun, M.D., Professor and Vice-Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West Virginia University-Charleston; Angelina Baglini, J.D., Fellow, Charlotte Lozier Institute; and Teresa Collett, J.D., Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law. The panel was moderated by Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.
One More Baby for Jesus – Join Us!
A Ministry of Forming Faithful Families http://www.formingfaithfulfamilies.com/ a non-profit public charity under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Every baby is a magnificent treasure, an awe-inspiring gift, a precious gem! Is God calling you to take up this beautiful opportunity to trust Jesus, to triumph over this fear driven culture that is afraid of children, and to be open to having One More Baby for Jesus? Are you willing to live in the moment without suffering unnecessary anxiety about the future which you don’t control? God is truly in control.
Jesus tells us: “Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself” (Matthew 6:34, NABRE).
Be part of the antidote for the prevailing culture that tends to seriously undervalue life. We at One More Baby for Jesus are in awe of life! Join us!
By One More Baby for Jesus we don’t mean one last baby, but one more baby for now if God in His most perfect providence grants this remarkable gift.
We are creating awareness and bringing the Catholic Church’s beautiful and true teachings on openness to life and the sanctity of life down to a simple concrete application in the present moment which is really the only place we can ever act from, and that is to be supportive of, or earnestly discern being open to having One More Baby for Jesus. This is not an imposition, but the sharing of a gift, an invitation.
We want to help people to reflect upon the true breathtaking nature and value of a child versus the various, sometimes mediocre reasons, that often inhibit us from being open to new life.
Even setting theology aside for a moment, we are going to be audacious in countering the prevalent culture that is so afraid of life and say: if you are blessed with potential fertility, why not strongly consider being open to having another baby if God so blesses you? Go for it!
Google One More Baby for Jesus or visit: http://www.formingfaithfulfamilies.com/one_more_baby_for_jesus
Explore our website http://www.formingfaithfulfamilies.com/ for many helpful resources including books, articles, and audios relative to openness to life within marriage and blessed family life and for education, hope and encouragement from a Catholic Christian view.
Posted in News & Commentary | No Comments »