Monday, July 23, 2018
"If 90% of Catholics Contracept, Then What Does That Say?" published on CourageousPriest.com, is another story in a long line of stories enshrining Pope Paul VI as a prophet, if not a saint, for penning Humanae Vitae, the 50th anniversary of which will be "celebrated" this July 25.
One wonders what there is to celebrate. HV has nearly destroyed the Church, NOT because of the pope's ultimate point (i.e. NO to contraception), but because of what he and his predecessor said and did BEFORE Paul go to his point.
Following is my reply to the above named article:
In answer to the question "what does that say?" I would submit that there was something fundamentally flawed with Humane Vitae. And here it is:
1. (And the first one is not the fault of Paul6.) If the church's teaching on contraception could never change then John23 should have never instituted a commission to study the question.
2. After Paul6 became pope he had an opportunity to disban the commission in the name of there is no reason to study a question when we already know the answer. Instead, he expanded the commission from the original 6 members to 72 members, and when he did so, he said this:
"We say frankly that so far we do not have sufficient reason to consider the norms given by Pope Pius XII on this matter [of contraception] as out of date and therefore as not binding. They must be considered as valid, at least until We feel obliged in conscience to change them." - Paul VI Acta apostolicae sedis (AAS) 56 (1964) 588-59, 1964 address to the special papal commission on the use of contraceptives.
As can be clearly seen, Paul6 gave every indication that the teaching was NOT unchangeable, and that the teaching could be changed when “WE feel obliged in conscience to change them.” (Note, he uses the papal WE.)
3. Paul6 sabotaged HV right from the start when he implies in par. 6, that all that is needed to change the teaching is a unanimous vote:
"...the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain...because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed."
This is why 90% of Catholic contracept. They were told by their pastors that the teaching was going to change anyway. Further, Paul6 speaks of the church's unchangeable teaching, something already determined to be instrinsically evil, as only "moral norms to be proposed."
And as a father of 11 children I have been mocked and ridiculed by my own pastors for not using contraception.
Let's stop blaming the people in the pews.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
I have, for quite awhile, used Facebook (as many have) as a sort of "blog," and rather neglected this one, this blog, which is the forum I once used, and frequently, to post personal musing...and sometimes more than musings.
But FB is not a place to post things you want to keep. So I've decided to repost certain FB musings here, even if they are not in keeping with the original theme of this blog, which was, originally, to comment on Church "stuff."
So here's one:
"No. No. NOTHING. Nothing will ever convince me that the the whole host of heavenly angels, despite the every present demons in rock and roll, did not whisper this song to Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, and despite their own demons, still heard....and showed us, quite unbeknownst probably even to them, the "stairway to heaven"...which we all must find...or be lost. And for that, and even that alone, I pray for their salvation...and ours."
Sunday, January 28, 2018
With the recent introduction of The Unborn Child Protection Act of 2018 in Guam's Legislature this past week, Guam has entered into the most controversial area of abortion legislation yet: pain-capable abortion limits.
The bill prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, because, as the bill states: "Medical evidence indicates that, at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child possesses the physical structure necessary to experience pain."
The abortion promoting Guttmacher Institute lists 19 states that have similar 20 week bans with various conditions and exceptions attached.
The immediate argument against the local bill is that similar legislation in Arizona and Idaho has been "enjoined" by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so why are we bothering with this legislation in Guam as the Ninth Circuit is sure to do the same with our bill?
There are a variety of arguments for pushing the legislation forward but the argument I personally propose is: "SO?"
The U.S. Supreme Court itself once ruled against a man named Dred Scott, a slave who sued for his freedom after his owner had taken him to a free state (Illinois).
Then-Chief Justice, Roger Taney, thought the ruling would resolve the slavery question once and for all (just like Roe v Wade was supposed to resolve the abortion question).
However, "the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War."
A later Chief Justice called the Scott decision "the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound."
Today, we can say "THANK GOD" some people did not sit down and shut up just because some guys in black robes ruled on something.
Pro-life advocates are today's "abolitionists." And due to their efforts, the Dred Scott case will one day take a back seat to Roe v Wade, as not just the Court's, but the United States of America's "greatest self inflicted wound."