Comments for Disinviting God at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sat, 25 May 2013 03:41:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12588 The Pontiff's sentence from the recent interview book "Light of the World" that was largely misunderstood is: "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that "some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church ... In reality," it clarified, "the words of the Pope -- which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behavior, namely prostitution -- do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church." "As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question," the CDF's statement affirmed, "the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception." "The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought," the congregation asserted. - G.K. Thursday Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:20:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12572 "Ever since the Pope in 2010 condoned the use of condoms in 'exceptional circumstances,' i.e., to prevent the spread of AIDS as an act of 'responsibility,'...." That's not what Pope Benedict XVI said. That is what, for example, the New York Times said he said, but it's well past the day when the New York Times can be trusted. - Mark Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:25:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12571 @Donald DeMarco: Excellent! For some reason it is hard for many people to understand the difference between contraception and nfp but someone reading your article should not have that problem. Thank you. @Rip: Paul VI inherited the commission from John XXIII. I think he made excellent lemonade. @Grump: I think you are mistaken in what B16 said which was in an interview. I'd have to go back and research it but my recollection is that he was just acknowledging that the intent of the person was to try to protect the other from disease. The implication being that this good intent might eventually bring the person to see the bigger picture and not sin in this regard. Perhaps someone else has it at hand and can give a better explanation. There is zero chance that the Church will ever approve of contraception. She has no power to change the natural law nor would she ever want to try. Have you ever seen that t-shirt that says "Gravity, it's the law." Similar situation. - kristinajohannes Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:58:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12569 Thanks for a tremendously helpful article. Grump, I don't think there's a basis for arguing that the Church is anti-scientific. The monks of the Middle Ages gave us many technological inventions and innovations based upon scientific observation of nature in order to improve agricultural output. The modern science of genetics was founded by the Austrian Benedictine Mendel. The hypothesis of a round earth had been around for centuries before Galileo; the Church's beef with him was that he was presenting as scientific fact something that could not be scientifically proved by the standards of the day -- and that this had consequences for faith. That is to say, as long as he stayed within the academic standards of the time, presenting his observation as forcefully as possible while still within then-regnant scientific boundaries, there was no problem. And finally, St. Thomas Aquinas' observations on the deep structure of reality has been borne out by modern physics, some of whose practitioners throw themselves into apoplexy at the prospect that science does after all point to the existence of God. A good book on scientific proof for the existence of God is found in Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God -- portions of which are beyond scientific laymen such as yours truly, I will be the first to admit. Dr. DeMarco's comment, "on the other hand, NFP can be used in order to avoid conception, while remaining open to the creation of life," requires more explanation and nuance I believe. If a couple is avoiding conception, aren't they by definition not open to the creation of life, even when using NFP? The argument seems to be that the couple utilizing NFP will accept the gift of a new life if their utilization fails or, worse, as those who deride our stance declare, if God overrides human agency and causes conception anyway. The argument all over the place is that people who use "the rhythm method" are called "parents," and those who make the argument are incapable or unwilling of seeing the difference between that method and NFP, as carefully and charitably as we who support NFP make the case to them. There's a lot of bad will out there, and advancing an argument that is philosophically correct while not immediately obvious doesn't advance our cause, I'm afraid. I would welcome Dr. DeMarco's response, as I think it would be very helpful to lots of readers. - Dave Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:42:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12564 Ever since the Pope in 2010 condoned the use of condoms in "exceptional circumstances," i.e., to prevent the spread of AIDS as an act of "responsibility," the Church is gradually but inexorably easing her stance on contraception. It's only a matter of time before a liberal successor to Benedict will embrace birth control as a means to control population growth and prevent unwanted pregnancies. As science is always way ahead of religion, (see Galileo, flat earth, etc.) it's inevitable that the Catholic Church will catch up to the modern world. - Grump Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:37:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/disinviting-god.html#comment-12563 I sat down to take a brief nap on July 24th 1968 and I just awoke so this seems quite strange to me. The last thing I remember was that the Church was going to change Its teaching on artificial contraception and in fact, many Catholic periodicals had supported this change. As a matter of fact, the current Pope, Paul VI, has convened a "birth control commission" and the Majority Report has come back endorsing the relaxation of the teaching against contraception. I found this rather odd because married couples have to confess the use of this practice as a MORTAL SIN. While Dr. DeMarco's article does follow the Church's teaching, I wonder why after forty-four years the Church has to have something called National NFP Awareness Week? Is it possible that the Church and I have actually been asleep for the last forty-four years? Is the reason for the Church's epiphany that the Government is threatening the Church because it no longer takes the Church seriously? What is Humanae Vitae and when was it first issued? Thank you in advance for your help. - Rip Van Winkle Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:05:45 +0100