Hey, Tim Jones, here.
1968 was the year that I “got saved” in the Baptist church and was baptized. I was seven, and at the time I’m certain that I thought everyone was a Baptist.
Even if I had been a Catholic at the time, though, I would have been too young to take note of the portentious “Truce of 1968”. Like the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam, it was one of those historic events of which I was blissfully unaware, but the effects of which would resonate through the rest of my life.
In THIS ARTICLE over at Catholic Exchange, George Weigel explains The Truce;
“In 1968, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington, D.C., disciplined nineteen priests who had publicly dissented from Pope Paul VI’s teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Three years later, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle should lift canonical penalties against those priests who informed the cardinal privately that they agreed that the Church’s teaching on “the objective evil of contraception” was “an authentic expression of (the) magisterium.”
The Congregation explicitly avoided requiring that the priests, who had dissented publicly, retract their dissent publicly. A new biography of O’Boyle, Steadfast in the Faith (Catholic University of America Press), suggests that the decision not to require a public retraction was made by Paul VI himself.”
To many who were adult Catholics at the time, the “Truce” was a watershed moment, in a decade of watershed moments.
At the time, it was one of a number signs that the Church hierarchy lacked the will or the courage to discipline dissident priests and bishops. It appeared to be almost paralyzed with fear of schism.
They appeared to be intensely concerned with keeping the modernists in the Church, with the result that we now have a Church full of modernists, each worshipping his own conscience.
Weigel’s opinion is always worth reading, and for me, learning about The Truce was a valuable history lesson.
Having been born in 1975, I had not been aware of this. But, Weigel’s assertion makes a lot of sense.
So many Catholics cause scandal to non-Catholics by not really living their faith. I’ve seriously talked with several non-Christians who’ve never actually met anyone who truly subscribed to Church teaching. One of these, a self-declared neopagan, actually has both a priest and a nun in her immediate family, and yet, even THEY didn’t believe the teaching of the Magisterium. And it actually really bothered her, even though she’d left the Faith.
And yet, at places like the Religious Education Congress and publications like Commonweal, dissident cafeteria Katholics strut their stuff, leading those who don’t know any better down the wrong path.
It’s really sad.
What schism? Maybe in europe (remember the near Jansenist schism?) but in America? Where would the liberals go for theirconferences? What bishops would actually break with Rome and set up a counter church? Reminds me of a boy whose parents were afraid that he was going to run away,so they asked me to dissuade him.When I told him he should not run away from home,he responded,”Why would I do that? Everything is there.” There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
What schism? Maybe in europe (remember the near Jansenist schism?) but in America? Where would the liberals go for theirconferences? What bishops would actually break with Rome and set up a counter church? Reminds me of a boy whose parents were afraid that he was going to run away,so they asked me to dissuade him.When I told him he should not run away from home,he responded,”Why would I do that? Everything is there.” There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
Very sad indeed, Jared.
I am also too young to recall the truce, and I believe that it struck a serious blow to Catholic identity in the US. Even “Practicing” or “Conservative” Catholics (Sean Hannity comes to mind) can openly dissent to the teaching without doing much damage to their Catholic identity… Mainly because everyone “knows” that no one really follows that doctrine anyway.
While the dissenters existed prior to the Truce (my mom recalls an organized walkout staged during Mass at her DC area parish in protest of Humanae Vitae), I believe the core of the damage was done to run-of-the mill Catholics in the pews. If the doctrine had been properly taught, I have no doubt that many more than the current approximate 10% of Catholics would observe the church’s teachings.
Evidently, Pope Paul VI and his advisors were keen to avoid de jure schism, and, for their pains, ended up with de facto schism in most dioceses of the U.S.
There would have been no schism beacause today dissidents stay and cause havoc within.
I think that’s exactly the point of the article. Without the truce, would they have stayed? Weigel’s theory suggests that in a different atmosphere they might have been forced to leave or have been kicked out.
Also, keep in mind that the example of O’Boyle took place un the US, but the focus of the Vatican has often been much more Eurocentric than focused on the Church in America. While there may not have been an American schism, in Europe it could have been a very real possibility.
It wasn’t so much a truce as a surrender.
but make sure to avoid those evil rad trads!
Franklyn: I doubt any bishop would actually do that. They’ll say their in communion with the Pope, but they won’t teach whatever they choose not to teach. They won’t promote whatever it is that they don’t want to promote. They’re too American, and not Catholic enough.
I attended Cardinal O’Boyle’s funeral many years ago. It was all very nice, with plenty of pageantry, but everyone tip-toed around the one thing his late Eminence was most eminent for, until it was almost all over. That was when Cardinal O’Connor offered a eulogy, in which he saluted O’Boyle for having been “a lion of courage” in his defense of Humanae vitae. And he was right. It was appalling how O’Boyle went out on a limb in the defense of the magisterium, and got exactly zero support from his fellow bishops, either in the United States or in Rome.
While there may not have been an American schism, in Europe it could have been a very real possibility.
And exactly how would have been worse than the present abandonment of the Faith in Europe?
Personal note:
OK, this is weird. Last night I decided that today I’d look into Humanae Vitae more carefully and get some questions answered (which I have done just now).
This morning, I’ve seen two explicit, top-of-the-order references to Humanae Vitae from my two daily sources of Catholic info.
OK, God… I get it. 🙂
Dittos to Jared. I was born and raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through the end of high school. Yet it wasn’t until I got to a secular college that I actually met young, intelligent Catholics who actually believed what the Church taught. It was a revelation to me. Initially I assumed they must be mindless robots, but dang, they could tap dance circles around me intellectually. I was actually a little angry at the time to learn that I’d been deprived of the church’s rich and beautiful teachings in favor of faith sharing and a very limited version of social justice.
Fr. Larry Gearhart RE–de facto schism: Y’know, I used that exact term about a month ago to describe the horrors wrought by Cardinal Mahony in our current locale. The question I had at the time I still have: how far can this man (and his like) “push the envelope” before Rome steps in? I’ve resigned myself to the fact that there won’t be any fraternal correction on the part of the other bishops, but geez, does Arinze not see what we’re dealing with here?
Margaret: I hear you. I’m desperately playing catchup intellectually. Thank God, for guys like Jimmy Akin.
There has been a massive exchange going on the last 2 days between the boards at Dawn Eden (really her comments section)and Feministe, discussing what constitutes being a real Catholic. (I got involved as well.)
Essentially, it comes down to the modernists, feminists, and fallen-away “Katholics” claiming to know Catholicism better than recent converts to Catholicism, all the while accusing them of being “pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope”.
The big problem is, again, scandal – they are claiming to be Catholic (even though some of them admit they have fallen away from the faith, but still identify themselves as Catholics) while promoting things like abortion and birth control, which just causes confusion to those that are uninformed about or weak in the faith.
And exactly how would have been worse than the present abandonment of the Faith in Europe?
Once again, this is the point of Weigel’s article. I agree that the Compromise was a mistake. I believe that it is perhaps the biggest stain on Paul VI’s legacy. Whether out of fear, weakness, or poor judgement, the Compromise of 1968 led to the present state of dissent in the Church today.
However, I do not altogether dismiss the possibility that an official European schism might have taken place. Perhaps one could argue that more discouraging than dissent itself, is the number of people who have left severed all ties with the Church, and whose children and grandchildren will never know the Catholic faith.
What is worse for the Church? Schism or heresy? The Church weathered Jansenism, Arianism, and Gnosticism (well, the latter at least until DVC). The Schism with the Eastern Church and the rise of Protestantism essentially caused permanent rifts.
Perhaps Paul VI made the choice between dealing with a Modernist Heresy and a Modernist Schism.
When I first read “The Courage to Be Catholic,” I was alarmed, very alarmed. Specifically, what George Weigel states: “The Truce of 1968 taught theologians, priests, and other Church professionals that dissent from authoritative teaching was, essentially, cost-free. The Truce of 1968 taught bishops inclined to defend authoritative Catholic teaching vigorously that they should think twice about doing so.”
In some ways, the article reflects a dilemma I have about coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. What’s worse: having little or no teaching authority, or having one that so many seem to ignore? Perhaps, better to remain within my present Protestant denomination.
ELCA’er –
I would argue that the main question is whether the teaching authority is legitimate, rather than whether enough people are listening.
The teaching authority of the Church comes from Christ himself. We can’t really choose to step outside of that authority and remain faithful.
If your point is that there are not enough people who acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church, then it would be odd not to do so yourself and therefore add to the problem.
The answer is to acknowledge the legitimate authority, and submit to it, rather than looking for the option that we find the least frustrating personally.
I was alive in 1968.
Heck, I was even alive in 1958.
I think Weigel overemphasizes these events in Washington in 1968.
It almost sounds like something cosmically significant.
It was not.
Can anyone please tell me when there was NOT dissent within the Church, sometimes made public, sometimes even between bishops and cardinals?
You also might want to read the actual document that the American Bishops published, Human Life in Our Day, which sparked the American debate. See how much of it you agree with. Read especially these two sections:
– The encyclical and conscience
– Norms of licit theological dissent
It could be said that the dissenting priests were, in fact, simply following the guidelines of the American Bishops’ own document. That seems to have been the conclusion from Rome.
And don’t forget that 1968 was a very hot year in DC. Hot as in burning. Lots of buildings burning. Riots. After MLK, Jr. was murdered on April 4. Riots, destruction, mayhem in many American cities that summer. And protests going on about the Viet Nam war (which also had the attention of American Bishops).
1968 was a very bad year in Washington, DC, for many reasons. People were very “uptight,” including many clergy.
–
Cardinal O’Boyle was a lion.My spritual director was close to his eminence and he told me that when there was no support from rome for Boyl’s defense of Humanae Vitae,the Cardinal wrote Pope Paul and told him either to support him or find another archbishop of Washington.That propmpted Paul VI to issue a letter strongly praising O’Boyle for his defense of the encyclical. I was at Catholic U in1968 when the great strike took place.The bishops collapsed but they collapsed as every other institution collapsed in 1968.May we never relive those days and the weak timid rule of Paul VI.
I don’t have time to finish the whole “Human Life in Our Day” document and I don’t like criticising bishops (though sometimes it becomes neccessary of course) but lest anyone like me fear at first that this document doesn’t support Humanae Vitae here is a good quote from it:
The encyclical is a positive statement concerning the nature of conjugal love and responsible parenthood, a statement which derives from a global vision of man, an integral view of marriage, and the first principles, at least, of a sound sexuality. It is an obligatory statement, consistent moral convictions rooted in the traditions of Eastern and Western Christian faith; it is an authoritative statement solemnly interpreting imperatives which are divine rather than ecclesiastical in origin. It presents without ambiguity, doubt or hesitation the authentic teaching of the Church concerning the objective evil of that contraception which closes the marital act to the transmission of life, deliberately making it unfruitful. United in collegial solidarity with the Successor of Peter, we proclaim this doctrine.
The EWTN text of “Human Life in Our Day” by the US Bishops is only chapter 1.
The whole text is available at Priests for Life.
Chapter II gets into International Affairs, Arms Control, Viet Nam and Consciencious Objectors.
The first two “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent” from the US Bishops:
49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.
50. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.
You could say the Church’s position was wrong, as long as you acknowledged that the Church has the right to teach the wrong thing. That was the compromise to lift the penalities from the dissenting priests (the 1 out of 3 of the original Washington, DC group that had not already left the priesthood before it got worked out).
Clearly, the American Bishops invited dissent to be “set forth” and “proposed” publicly. After all, it was a new age of open communication, of “Free Speech.”
They got it.
Remember also that the mid-1960’s were a time when the Catholic Church in the US was literally hemorraging priests and nuns. After the popular myths of “married clergy any day now” and “the Church will change on contraception” turned into great disappoints when the Church did not change, many American nuns and priests just walked out in the late 1960’s. Hardline bishops were not helpful with the “personnel crisis” at this time.
Thanks Old Zhou. You always mangage to put things in perspective. For myself (I was 8 years old in 1968) I’m left to wonder: IF the Pope had booted the buggers out of the Church would George Weigel now be writing an article about the huge mistake the Pope made causing a huge schism in the Church.
Analysis is ok. I hate Monday morning Popes.
As JR said above, the document “Human Life in Our Day” by the American bishops was clearly supportive of Humanae Vitae. This was a suprise to bishops in many other parts of the world.
This is from the Canadian Bishops’ statement of September 27, before the American Bisohps’ statement:
17. It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See.
Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.
The global reaction to Humanae Vitae in 1968 was so wide, so overwhelming, and, generally, so negative that it is hard to imagine today. All over the world, the Church was, actually, working with many civil governments in the area of “family planning,” and many clergy had to decide to walk out of the church, or walk out of the social programs. It seemed like cognitive dissonance between “obedience to the Pope” and “Gaudium et Spes” inspired engaging the world. And that was the conflict. European bishops came out publicly against it. The question, in 1968, was of Obedience. Nobody, not even the American Bishops in “Human Life in Our Day” said that “Humanae Vitae” was good or correct. They just said that “The Pope said it, we obey. You should obey, too.”
Pope Paul VI, after issuing Humane Vitae in 1968, never issued another encyclical, although his papacy lasted until 1978. Many say it was because of the fierce, global, negative response to Humanae Vitae.
It was not until John Paul II’s work in “Theology of the Body” that “Humanae Vitae” came to be appreciated. It took John Paul II to unpack some of the theological and anthropological significance of “Humanae Vitae.” But by that time, the “Rules of Licit Dissent” were being used everywhere, on everything: “The Church is wrong, but it has a right to teach the wrong thing,” and everything is cool.
One of the big “ifs”. When Humanae Vitae was being prepared, Cardinal Wojtyla set up a panel of theologians in Krakow to examine the same issues as the papal commission. (Wojtyla was supposed to have been on the papal commission but had been unable to get a passport). Their memo to the commission provided the Christian personalist context that was reflected in Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility and would later find its way into the Theology of the Body. Some elements of this memo were included in the final draft but Humanae Vitae largely focussed on the sexual acts and missed out on the context.
It may well have been that even if Humanae Vitae included this framework for understanding the Church’s position on conjugal morality the charges of legalism would still have been made. Without it, unfortunately, the charges were very difficult to counter.
I have to point out that the norms of licit dissent apply only “when conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching”.
There can be no licit dissent from infallible teaching.
Ah yes, but some claimed that the Church’s teaching against birth control was not infallible.
“Ah yes, but some claimed that the Church’s teaching against birth control was not infallible.”
It’s as infallible, as immutable, as much a teaching or the ordinary and universal magisterium as the Church’s teaching that the satet may put heretics to death for no other reason than heresy.
Oh, wait a minute . . . Oops!
satet = state
I would recommend “What Went Wrong With Vatican II” by Ralph McInerny.
McInerny echoes much of George Weigel’s thesis in the dissent from HV set the stage for the crisis in the Church today.
I was present when the Late Father John A Hardon SJ told us The Most Shocking thing in the Massive Dissent from Humanae Vitae Was that the Bishops of the world took it to be their duty to vote on whether or not they would accept an Papal Encyclical!!
According to Father Hardon (a great student of the papacy) it was the first time in History that Bishops as a group did such a thing to a Pope.
50% of them Dissented from Humanae Vitae. By the way the Polish Conference Voted to affirm the Pope. All this is was one reason Father Hardon would never tire of saying that the Church was going through the worse crisis of it’s 2000 year History!! Another reason is in the Western Church 70% of “Catholics” have apparently lost their Faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and also in some other surveys 90%+ are Contracepting!
Some people Believe Pope Paul VI was not opperating from Strength but the Grace of the Office, when he published Humanae Vitae. To be fair Archbishop Fulton J Sheen DD said Pope Paul told him “When I open my mail at Midnight in almost every letter there is a thorn and when I lay my head on my pillow at night I lay it on a crown of thorns”
Pope Paul suffered Heroically!After Humanae Vitae he never published another Encyclical.
Please note my other posting is not as accurate in content and is posted in the wrong place Oops…..
I second the motion to read “What Went Wrong With Vatican II” by Ralph McInerny.
Also, Philip Trower’s “Turmoil and Truth”.
Old Zhou, I think you might be right if you think Weigel’s article is portraying “the truce” as a globally significant turning point. However, I think Weigel’s point is focusing on the effect it had on the Bishops, particularly in the U.S.
The consequences of getting cut off at the knees sent a message, and contributed to the spirit of “discontinuity and rupture.” He isn’t the first to make this case, and I don’t doubt that it is true.
How much it contributed to the current chaos? Dunno.
Eric,
Please tell me where I can find:
“Church’s teaching that the state may put heretics to death for no other reason than heresy.”
What is fascinating to me is that if you can’t accept the authority of this teaching by submission and faith, you should be able to at least accept this teaching based on PPVI’s prediction of what would happen in the world if people did not live according to Humanae Vitae. Sort of a backdoor route, I know, but gee, does anybody really think we are better off, as a people and a church, with all of the contracepting going on? Does anybody really believe the old “every child a wanted child” garbage?
Since I was alive in 1948 and three years out of high school in ’68, I have some idea of the atmosphere back then.
I can’t cite a document that says it, but the laity I knew believed that the Church condemned all forms of birth control including the rhythm method, which was largely ineffective in any case.
At the same time women were moving into the workforce where pregnancy was a definite handicap. Employers interviewing women for a job asked point-blank “Do you plan to have (or have any more) children?” If the answer was “yes”, the woman didn’t get the job. Women who did not work outside the home were beginning to be classed as somewhat lazy and those who worked were seen as an asset to their husbands and family–the good wife.
Prior to the issuance of the encyclical there was a general sense among Catholic women that the need to be an asset to their family by going to work could be facilitated by using the pill. Since many couples were already practicing rhythm in a frequently failing attempt to prevent pregnancy, despite the belief that the Church disapproved, the pill was seen as just a better way to do what they were already doing. Nothing was known about the abortifacient effects of the pill.
Impacting the laity’s perception of church doctrine was also the Fatima Secret that was to have been released in the early 60s, but which was not released. The laity discovered that even heaven could be ignored without consequence. Compared to the Blessed Virgin, what was so important about ignoring a pope?
David Yallop, in the book IN GOD’S NAME, indicates that Pope John Paul I saw HV as a mistake that he had full intention of rectifying quickly, but died (or was murdered) before he could accomplish it. Yallop also indicates that Pope Paul VI’s commission on birth control recommended that the Pope accept the pill.
The doctrine on infallibility was fresh in the minds of Catholics in 1968 because it had been used to proclaim a Marian feast in the 50’s. Now came Paul VI with HV and his decision specifically NOT to declare it infallible. That sent a message. No Catholic took HV seriously. It was viewed as a joke. There was even a poster sold with a picture of Paul VI pointing his finger (the Uncle Sam gesture), and the words “The Pill is a No-No” at the bottom of the poster, that some Catholics hung on their walls to laugh at.
Since then NFP has been developed, providing couples a way to regulate births without the pill. That was not available to Catholics in 1968. Not using the pill meant having no reliable control over pregnancy. How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?
This is the first time I’ve heard about the Truce of 1968. If it had a large impact on priests and bishops, it had little impact on the laity back then.
“…the laity I knew believed that the Church condemned all forms of birth control, including the rhythm method…” Then the laity you knew were ignorant.
The “Fatima Secret” was not and is not Church Doctrine, and it was not supposed to be revealed in the 1960s. The pope was to read it in 1960, but it was up to the reigning pope to decide when and whether it was to be revealed to the world.
“David Yallop, in the book IN GOD’S NAME (sic),indicates that Pope John Paul I saw HV as a mistake that he had full intention of rectifying quickly, but died (or was murdered) before he could accomplish it.” Did a duplicate key to the ward room ice-box also exist?
“Now came Paul VI with HV and his decision NOT specifically to declare it infallible….No Catholic took HV seriously.” Actually, many of us did (and do).
“How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?” All of us who accept God’s Way of doing things and recognize children as His gift.
Bill, the teaching back then was that a woman was not to refuse her husband. Rhythm was seen as the woman refusing her husband and thus condemned. That may not have been the universal belief of the Church, I really don’t know, but it was what was believed where I lived.
Fatima is not Church doctrine, true. That understanding of Marian apparitions has become general knowledge since 1968. Back in the 50’s even the nuns talked to us school children about the secret of Fatima that was to be revealed soon. We were not subjected to a plethora of false apparitions at that time, and Fatima had Church approval, and so was considered to be a message from God. It was generally believed to be the Blessed Virgin who had appeared, and the Pope was seen as refusing her request, at least where I came from. Obviously Catholicism had more regional beliefs before the internet.
Re David Yallop’s book, I don’t understand either your (sic) or your comment about the key, though it’s been a couple of years since I read the book.
All of us who accept God’s Way of doing things and recognize children as His gift.
NFP is considered to be in conformity with God’s way of doing things. Most Catholics I’ve come to know via the web use NFP in conformity with the teachings of the Church. I have met one Catholic on a message board who does not use it and accepts whatever pregnancies come, but she is rare.
Hey Bill, instead of snarking sarcasm, how about answering her question?
“How many Catholics today would be willing to raise however many children that nature provides or give up sex altogether to prevent pregnancy?”
Few. Very few. More today than yesterday, but still precious few. To be sure, how many Catholics are/have been willing to “give up sex altogether” before marriage?? How many faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith, were virgins when they got married, or are still virgins if single? Next to none, that is the answer.
Now, how many would have embraced chastity and rejected contraception if society did not go through the “sexual revolution” of the 60s-70s? How many would have remained true and faithful if a significant number of those we look to for leadership had enthusiastically taken the time to teach and promote the truth of Humanae Vitae, and not merely defend it? Many, many, many more.
Sadly, although Pope Paul VI may have been infallible in teaching, he and the bishops were quite fallible in the presentation of that teaching. They made grevious errors in tactics and strategy in battling hedonistic modernity. If it was erroneous of Carrie to say that “no Catholic” took Humanae Vitae seriously, it is equally erroneous to claim that “many” did. No, many did not. Some did, a few did, but not “many.”
Maybe even more to the point, Bender, if our leaders had taken Humane Vitae seriously, what would our society look like today, and would it be more accommodating to children? I’d be willing to bet it would look a lot different than it does. I’d be willing to bet that the pressure on women to have a job would be significantly less. I’d be willing to bet that a “living wage” would be a wage that made raising a family possible. I’d bet there would still be affordable vehicles that would accommodate more than two parents and two children. I’d bet the divorce rate would be much much lower. There would be enough members in the upcoming generation to support the retirement of the older generation.
We’d probably not be nearly as focused on the latest novelties. There would probably be less market for electronic gimmicks, and less interest in “styles”. And since America leads the world, it might also be possible that the entire world would look a lot different than it does. Culturally, children would have a place of welcome that today they do not have. Some of the trade-offs would be negative, like not everyone being able to go to college, but the bulk would probably be positive.
We are supposed to be salt and light. We’ve been neither one. But alas, now we are stuck with the culture we’ve created, and fixing it is going to take a long time.
While everybody on this thread discusses birth control, they (including Weigel, who should know better) ignore a fundamental fact: The Church’s episcopocracy has always been a closed system riddled with arrogance and corruption, constantly ignoring calls for accountability and transparency. If you could go back in time and ask Erasmus, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena and St. John Chrysodom, they’d tell you the same thing — and they didn’t have to worry about papal teachings concerning birth control.
Why won’t the Church discipline malfeasant priests and bishops? It has far less to do with Humanae Vitae than it does with the fact that the Church values a superficial conformity that maintains the illusion of unity and consistency. It’s afraid of making its mistakes public because doing so undermines its sweeping claims to temporal influence. After all, if the Church can’t get it’s own teachings straight, what good are its pronouncements on distinctly secular affairs?
This “company man” mentality is *the* reason why JPII was so malfeasant in disciplining such people as Law, Mahony, Weakland, etc. He appointed men to be loyal primarily to his geopolitical and theological agenda, and he was not going to undercut their position (and, thereby, undercut his own) regardless of how misfeasant they were.
But if Weigel is right about the role of Humane Vitae, then perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus.
“…perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus.”
Except time has proven that it wasn’t.
What more could the modernists wanted after Vatican II? It is clear in scripture what the intent of marriage is-to produce offspring and populate heaven. But I have to chuckle and have no idea what Paul VI really stood for and where he belongs in church history as he pushed forth the destruction and loss of millions of clergy who left the Catholic priesthood in the 70’s and 80’s by the introduction of the new Protestant Liturgy that has only gotten worse today as well as the New Sacraments and translation of the bible and then of course the new Code of Canon law under JPII that needed to coincide with Modernism and Vatican II and opened the door for 60,000 annulments a year in the US alone, what a horrible state the church is in with respect the Catholic marriage, and of course the handing over of our Lord to non-catholics (Eucharistic Hospitality anyone??)just another re-enactment of not the last supper-But Our lord being handed over by the Pharisies for his crucifixion
Pray for a return to true Traditionalism and faith, morals, and prayer. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
God bless
“…perhaps Vaticanisti themselves knew that the rationale behind it was bogus.”
Except time has proven that it wasn’t.
Then, Tim, why didn’t the Vatican demand that those priests who protested publicly retract their dissent publicly? The only other explanation is the one to which I dedicated most of my first post.
Joseph, there is one other possible explanation. The destruction we are enduring may have been orchestrated. Paul VI himself said the smoke of satan had entered. Whatever the consecration of Russia was intended to counter was not countered in the 60s as heaven planned.
Today we seem to have two factions in the Church. For example, one of them issued the document on the New Age while the other sponsored a New Age conference on the very grounds of the papal summer residence, as I’ve been blogging. Talk about a de facto schism!
“Bill, the teaching back then was that a woman could not refuse her husband.” It still is. It is also a teaching of the Church that a husband may not refuse his wife. “”The husband should give to his wife the conjugal relations, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, the wife does.” 1 Cor. 7:3-4.
“…the pope was seen as refusing (Mary’s) request, atleast where I came from.” Just because some people see something a certain way doesn’t make it so.
“NFP is considered to be in conformity with God’s way of doing things. “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” 1 Cor 7:5. Could a woman’s fertile period be the season to which St. Paul refers?
“How many faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith, were virgins when they got married or are still virgins if single? Next to none, that is the answer.” A psychologist might call this “Projection”. Well, I’m 52, single, and, by the Grace of God, still a virgin. There’s nothing special about me. If I can do it, anybody can.
Bender, I wholeheartedly agree with your paragraph about the sexual revolution and the failure of many of the Church’s leaders to teach and promote HV.
Just because some people see something a certain way doesn’t make it so.
I’m not saying it does. But remember, what this thread is about–the reason we are in the midst of a scandal. That reason does not rest on truth. It rests on perception by those who made choices back in 1968 and since. The way that people saw the Pope’s actions is pertinent to the way they themselves acted in 1968. A Pope who ignored heaven’s orders also impacted the way the laity would respond to his own.
“Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” 1 Cor 7:5.
When citing this passage it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the Holy Family is held up to us as the ultimate model of married life, but they defied this perscription in Corinthians. There was only one child, and the wife remained a virgin until she died. They did not come together, let alone “come together again.” Teaching on the congujal act is a bit schizophrenic at best. St. Joseph had grounds for annulment. The marriage was never consummated.
Apples: The Church’s teaching on marraige.
Oranges: “St. Joseph had grounds for annulment.”
Yo,
What is this “nature provides” nonesense?
Is this a Catholic blog, or not?
Michael Hugo,
If you want a response it would be a good idea to cite exactly where you read “nature provides” and give the context. I think few people want to read through everything looking for that comment.
From Catholic Answers:
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
JR,
If you didn’t say it, don’t answer it.
I was responding to Carrie.
I hear some in the Eastern Orthodox Church teach the same thing, while other Patriarchs allow contraception in certain limited circumstances.
Also I know a Church of Christ youth minister who believes contraception is immoral and has a kid every year or two. So we’re not quite alone, but darn close to it.
Michael, God the Creator created nature. The generative sexual act is part of that creation. We know where babies come from. It’s not magic nor entirely miraculous. Pregnancy is predictable.
The Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada has this to say:
Though opinions vary among Orthodox on this issue, the view of most Orthodox bodies is that controlling conception through “natural family planning”, or contraception, is acceptable for married couples, as long as it is done in a spirit of responsible Christian stewardship of life.
This means, first, that birth control will not be used merely because having and rearing children is seen as a financial or social inconvenience.
Secondly, it means that any form of contraception used will not be physically harmful to either spouse, and will not involve the abortion of a fertilized egg. Finally, the decision to utilize birth control, as well as the decision to have a child, must be a mutual one between both wife and husband.
An Orthodox online friend explained that the Orthodox stand guard at the marriage bedroom door but do not enter the bedroom. That’s not a universally accepted opinion, however, or so I’ve been told.
It will be interesting to see how this is going to be worked out if Benedict is successful in ending the schism.
If Pope Benedict is successful in ending the schism, the Eastern Catholics will be (as they are now) required to accept valid magisterial teaching like Humanae Vitae. Obviously I don’t know how it will work out in a practical way but no Catholic may reject Church teaching, whatever their “rite.”
“Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” 1 Cor 7:5. Could a woman’s fertile period be the season to which St. Paul refers?
Hey, that’s an interesting take on that passage. Could Jimmy, if he’s reading this, comment on whether that’s a valid interpretation?
If Pope Benedict is successful in ending the schism, the Eastern Catholics will be (as they are now) required to accept valid magisterial teaching like Humanae Vitae. Obviously I don’t know how it will work out in a practical way but no Catholic may reject Church teaching, whatever their “rite.”
Isn’t Eastern Orthodox acceptance of contraception a quite recent occurence (even moreso than with the Protestants)?
Bender wrote: How many faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith, were virgins when they got married, or are still virgins if single? Next to none, that is the answer.
Uh, Bender? If you’re talkin’ about “faithful and traditional Catholics, enthusiastic defenders of the faith,” my guess would be MOST of us. It’s possible that some of us came around, after having made a mistake, but, uh, since that’s one of the integral teachings of the Church’s stand on marriage, it’s a strong bet to say that the truly faithful have held firm in this.
My wife and I were virgins ’til our wedding night as have been many of our friends, our parents, and many others. I know it’s rare in today’s SOCIETY, but the faithful in the Church (as I said, unless they made a mistake earlier) have always striven to uphold this teaching in their lives. It’s difficult but not as rare as you seem to be saying it is.
Germany will forbid a POPE Satire.
GOD begins with G. like GERMAN
http://www.chartaland.de
I agree, Jared, that there are faithful and traditional Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the faith before marriage. What I don’t know is how many of these there are. My guess is that they are very very rare–a remnant. And they have had no support from the leadership of the Church, a leadership that has been willing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of single Catholics embrace a polar opposite ethic.
One young person described the attitude of Newman Center priests who practically encouraged premarital sex and undermined Catholic pious practices. This person was considering conversion to the faith until she discovered the double standard and changed her mind.
How can the priest be faulted when the leadership of the Church was not supporting a traditional bishop, as this blog points out? And how can a bishop be expected to be traditional knowing he will get no active support from Rome. Would not, and will not.
Nice orthodox words from the chief shepherd only go so far. When Bruskewitz dies he’s going to be a saint. Right now he is the only bishop I can trust to be orthodox. And he’s not mine.
Are we in the midst of the Great Apostasy described in Revelation? To find a New Thought conference hosted by Focolare at Castel Gandolfo is just about the last scandal I can endure. If the leadership in Rome can’t even get the First Commandment right, how can we expect them to have the Sixth figured out?
Forty years of papal leadership brought us to this point, and I’m still waiting for the current office holder to begin to make a change. It’s often said that the Church thinks and acts in centuries; but I’m running out of lifetime.
I know how you feel, carrie, but I am very thankful that I live in a time that seems to be a kind of new Golden Age of Catholic apologetics. There is more solid, othodox material available for individual formation than there has ever been.
Yes, there is a lot of poison out there, too, but we now have at our disposal a healthy arsenal of material to help lay people and catechists get what they may not be able to find in their parish.
We have EWTN, Catholic radio stations, magazines, books, tapes, cds… much more than any generation has had before, and we have a responsibility to use it.
There are lax priests, bishops and catechists by the bushel, but with all the tools we have access to now, a serious, orthodox Catholic has little excuse not to be adequately formed in the faith.
It’s not all so bleak as it is made to sound.
Regarding the 3rd Secret of Fatima, sounds like you may have been poorly catechized on that. I would think that the Pope would know best what he was supposed to to with a message that was, after all, left for him.
If it was erroneous of Carrie to say that “no Catholic” took Humanae Vitae seriously, it is equally erroneous to claim that “many” did. No, many did not. Some did, a few did, but not “many.”
May depend on whether you are talking about absolute number or relative to the members of the Church. If one percent of all Catholics did something, it would be absolutely many people, even if it is, relative to the number of Catholics, few.
I agree, Jared, that there are faithful and traditional Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the faith before marriage. What I don’t know is how many of these there are. My guess is that they are very very rare–a remnant
I am turning 21 May 20th and am still a virgin. Most of my friends are too, and I live in Syracuse, NY (about 2 doors down from the Heart of Darkness, just before you get to the Inferno). I don’t know what actual percentage of young people who wait until marriage is, but there are plenty of them, even if there are more who do not.
This is the approach I take to this whole situation. As Tim pointed out, there are innumerable bright points in the Church. It is like a night in which, as it gets darker and the sky blacker, the stars get brighter and more of them come out. Are we in the Great Apostasy? Maybe. Maybe that started around the 14th or 15th century and we are at the latest phase of it. But what of it? God is still in charge.
Let’s get back to the original point: Weigel asserts that since the Vatican did not confront clerical dissent in the face of Humanae Vitae, it has failed to confront any clerical or episcopal misfeasance. The question is why. Outside of the two possible reasons I provided (pervasive internal corruption and the lack of confidence in the rationale behind HV), here’s another.
The Church is a bureaucracy (among other things) and bureaucracies, whether religious or secular, are notoriously lethargic (just go to the DMV) and self-absorbed. Anything that doesn’t immediately enhance the bureaucracy’s own needs won’t be acted upon promptly or even considered.
So why wouldn’t the Congregation of the Clergy support O’Boyle’s discipline? Perhaps it just didn’t give a damn. Seriously. Perhaps the congregation’s members were more interested in their siestas or in lunch at the nearby trattoria.
I’m not kidding, people.
Joseph –
“Weigel asserts that since the Vatican did not confront clerical dissent in the face of Humanae Vitae, it has failed to confront any clerical or episcopal misfeasance. The question is why.”
Of course, its important to know why in order to bring things back in line.
The reasons you favor tend to assume bad faith on the part of the hierarchy.
It seems to me more likely that there was (and remains) an overweening concern to prevent schism, a fear of being seen as a bully.
I see it as a lack of spine. Lord knows we see it enough in our own politicians. Using the language of politics, I would encourage the Pope to “play to his base”.
Joseph and Tim may both be right. Inertia and cowardice often go together and feed each other.
I’m more inclined to vote for the smoke of satan, myself. I think it was deliberate. I also think that those who are guilty thought they were doing what was best for the Church. Didn’t a visionary from one of the approved apparitions talk about a “diabolical disorientation”?
Remember Pope Leo XIII’s vision?
Tim wrote Of course, its important to know why in order to bring things back in line.
I’ve been saying the same thing myself. Until we expose whatever ugly secrets are still hidden, and until we have some assurance the activities will not be repeated, we are going to keep stirring this foul pot of heresy and apostasy ad infinitum.
I think Rome and the bishops still have their stake in keeping the secrets.
I’m sorry, I’m just not much for conspiracy theories.
This is the weirdest series of comments I’ve seen in a long time.
Jimmy, please weigh in on this!
Carrie writes:
Today we seem to have two factions in the Church. For example, one of them issued the document on the New Age while the other sponsored a New Age conference on the very grounds of the papal summer residence, as I’ve been blogging. Talk about a de facto schism!
De facto schism? Or de facto schizophrenia?
Maybe it is high time for the pseudo-Catholics to make a “moral stand” and walk out in protest of the first century thinking and moralizing of the Magisterium and of many on this blog.
I”they went out from us because they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us” (1Jn 1:19). Amen.
I’m sorry, I’m just not much for conspiracy theories
So you reject the Church’s teachings on Satan then, Tim? Perhaps you’d better understand what we are facing if you read Fr. Gabriele Amorth’s book, AN EXORCIST TELLS HIS STORY.
It isn’t possible to be an orthodox Catholic without believing in the conspiracy.
Carrie, I was referring to the tendency of some to see an Official Cover Up behind every story.
You know… Roswell, JFK, We Never Went To The Moon… the stinkin’ DaVinci Code, for that matter.
I don’t believe in any sort of Official Plan to Defy and Frustrate the Revealed Will of Our Lady.
To try to make that mean that I don’t believe in the activity of Satan is just a little unhinged.
“I don’t believe in any sort of Official Plan to Defy and Frustrate the Revealed Will of Our Lady.”
That is, I don’t think the hierarchy have deviously kept the Third Secret of Fatima from being revealed, or have been trying to prevent the REAL consecration of Russia.
I certainly believe in the smoke of Satan, and where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Carrie,
It isn’t possible to be an orthodox Catholic without believing in the conspiracy.
In your opinion is it possible to be an orthodox Catholic and just believe the words of Christ “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”?
Jospeh D’Hippolito I already know your answer about Christ as a “master of irony”.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
That is, I don’t think the hierarchy have deviously kept the Third Secret of Fatima from being revealed, or have been trying to prevent the REAL consecration of Russia.
But you do, I trust, believe that even the hierarchy are subject to the effects of the Fall and therefore subject to temptation. You do believe that Satan is the arch deceiver, and that he tricked our first parents.
Adam and Eve believed that they were doing something good when they listened to the serpent. They were not out to defy God, but look at the result. Is there any guarantee that our hierarchy is immune? As is often said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Historically we have had bad popes. Certainly we have a long history of bad decisions. If that were not so, what were all of John Paul’s apologies about?
I don’t believe in any sort of Official Plan to Defy and Frustrate the Revealed Will of Our Lady.
It is not for nothing that she is so frequently depicted with her foot on the snake. If there were an official human plan, it would be easier to expose it. Satan is smarter than that.
If you will recall, one of the revelations at Fatima was that eventually Russia will be consecrated and her Immaculate Heart will prevail. Isn’t that an indication that at first her Immaculate Heart will not prevail?
There is a conspiracy, Tim. The arch conspirator just isn’t human, and so you will never find a locus of activity or a human leader of the conspiracy here on earth; and that fact works to the deceiver’s advantage. What you will find on earth is the deceiver’s network. I believe some of them are in the Church.
Inocencio wrote: In your opinion is it possible to be an orthodox Catholic and just believe the words of Christ “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”?
The Church is built upon the pope. But the guarantee is that the Church will survive, not that every pope will be a saint. Neither is there any guarantee that the Church will survive everywhere at all times. A reading of history will quickly demonstrate that this is not the promise we can count on. Look at Russia.
When Christ returns there will be a remnant of His Church still in existence. Somewhere. Not necessarily in the United States, or in my state of Ohio. Are you content to see the local church you cherish disintegrate into non-existence for the rest of your lifetime? Is it enough to know that there will be a remnant when Christ returns, or do you desire to have access to the sacraments until you are dead and gone? Would you rather look for reasons and answers to keeping your church alive, or just bury your head in the warm fuzzies?
If your point is that there are not enough people who acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church, then it would be odd not to do so yourself and therefore add to the problem.
This would be akin to not believing Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life (John 6) because people left him there. The key is that Peter (the 1st Pope) stayed.
The Pope following Christ is “enough people”, which is why he is charged with strengthening his brothers (Luke 22:32).
Church’s teaching that the state may put heretics to death for no other reason than heresy.
The Bull Exsurge Domine by Leo X:
Condemned: “33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
“No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.”
Jospeh D’Hippolito I already know your answer about Christ as a “master of irony”.
Well, Inocencio, how about this comment that Christ made:
“When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?”
Institutionalized Christianity, Catholic and otherwise, is afflicted with corruption.
Carrie-
I’m afraid perhaps we have been talking past each other a bit.
OF COURSE I believe that there is a diabolical conspiracy against the Church. OF COURSE I accept that he tempts our leaders and they make bad decisions at times.
That doesn’t mean that I must accept that there has been any conspiracy at all regarding Fatima.
I see Satan’s conspiracy happening every day, and I don’t have to leave my house to find it. I see it less in grand, sweeping plots and much more in daily temptations to pride, anger, lust, sloth, gluttony, etc…
I just think there exists an unhealthy tendency to impute guilt and bad faith to decisions of the hierarchy, when this is often not warranted… and I speak as one who would love to see some infamous bishops get the boot!
If Satan can manage to keep us all focused on Church politics, rather than on personal holiness and prayer, I think he will have pulled off the ultimate deception.
Carrie,
So trusting our Blessed Lord is “burying my head in warm fuzzies”? I will keep trusting Him and His Church not because the pope and bishops in communion with him are saints but because they have God-given authority.
Joseph,
Christ Himself Institutionalized Christianity when He founded His Church with His authority, even if you are too “intelligent and independent thinking” to grasp that fact.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
If Satan can manage to keep us all focused on Church politics, rather than on personal holiness and prayer, I think he will have pulled off the ultimate deception.
Of course, Tim J., focusing on personal holiness and prayer while ignoring altogether the pervasive corruption within the ecclesiastical structure can also be a satanic deception.
I’m not saying that you, personally, do this. I do know, however, that many Catholics do.
The secret is a balance between both emphases.
So trusting our Blessed Lord is “burying my head in warm fuzzies”? I will keep trusting Him and His Church not because the pope and bishops in communion with him are saints but because they have God-given authority.
Inocencio, how are you willing to hold those God-given authorities accountable when they engage in revisionism that’s based on intellectual fashion and ignore the Gospel they were commissioned to preach and defend? Are we not responsible to God, Who implanted His Holy Spirit in us as a guide, to “discern the spirits”? What happens when such “shepherds” as Mahony, Law, et al abuse their “God-given authority” to shuffle clerical predators around their dioceses w/o either the knowledge or the consent of the faithful and their pastors?
Joseph,
You cite sins of certain individual bishops. We all know bishops and even Popes sin. That does not change the fact of the God-given authority of the Magisterium to teach. It teaches with the authority of Christ and is the legitimate interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, not you or me or anyone else who posts here. This belief is practically what defines a Catholic.
Joseph-
“…focusing on personal holiness and prayer while ignoring altogether the pervasive corruption within the ecclesiastical structure can also be a satanic deception.”
Granted.
Just how pervasive is the corruption is a matter of individual judgement, but I reject outright any notion that corruption is so pervasive that it makes the “current ecclesiastical structure” anything like illegitimate.
focusing on personal holiness and prayer while ignoring altogether the pervasive corruption within the ecclesiastical structure can also be a satanic deception.
The two are not completely separate. The purpose of the Church is personal holiness, which is to say the reconciliation of the individual with Christ and His giving the individual His own Holiness, so to speak. Nothing in the life of the individual should conflict with this. Nothing should really be separate from this. Part of personal holiness would be caring about the Church, including “ecclesial structure.” Depending on one’s situation, words or action to help the situation may be in order. This is not opposed to personal holiness/prayer, but rather should flow from it and be a part of it. Dividing life or religion into false sharp catagories could also be a satanic deception.
“Dividing life or religion into false sharp catagories could also be a satanic deception.”
Well said.
As many have questioned “Has the smoke of satan entered the church”? Well if so, it is because John XXIII decided to throw the windows open of the church and allow man and woman born with original sin, to start to question their own faith and traditions and even participate in non-Catholic ceremonies (JPII kissing Korans, sign of shiva, hindu worship at Fatima, Eucharistic hospitality, etc etc) and the young catholic questions “If the church NOW teaches we are not the ONE TRUE CHURCH any more (thank you Father Ratzinger and Lumen Gentium) and other non Catholics can be saved now, even those that reject Jesus which is in clear contradiction to scripture, then why do I need to obey something like contraception???????????
The only answer is Satan and corrupt clergy, or shall I say misguided. One can only seek refuge in the traditional Mass, traditional teachings, Baltimore Catechism and the DR Bible until the church rights herself. She is now even trying to do away with traditional organizations such as SSPX by using her strong $$$$ and buy these men out, who I question if some of them may actually bite at it in the desire to be in “Communion”. But one would be better off following sacred tradition than a church that has had a history of bad popes and clergy and even voided 2 councils many years later, as Vatican II will be voided at some future time one must predict
John,
The Church has never stopped teaching that it is the one true Church or that non-Catholics can not be saved if they are responsibe for their remaining non-Catholics.
Also, when Bl. John XXIII was asked what he hoped to come of Vatican II, allegedly he said “hopefully at least a little fresh air.” You might question what he meant by that, but clearly he did not envision what has happened in the Church after his death.
The rest I think I will let others handle if they want. Your attitude is hardly Catholic though, I must say, saying you don’t want to follow the Church and all that. How do you hold both the belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church to which everyone must belong and the belief that you can reject the Church to follow your own interpretation of Tradition?
So trusting our Blessed Lord is “burying my head in warm fuzzies”?
No, pretending nothing is wrong is burying your head in the warm fuzzies. Refusing to call our leaders to account is burying your head in the warm fuzzies.
I’m going to go ahead and close the comments on this thread, because I think pretty well everyone has said their piece at least once, and also because I don’t want this to degenerate into another “Trads vs. NeoCons” donnybrook.
Thanks for your input, folks.