sábado, 28 de julho de 2012

A Opção por um Matrimónio Civil Indissolúvel (Liberdade cristã num Estado laico) - P. Gonçalo Portocarrero de Almada



Alguns Estados e instituições europeias, à conta de um laicismo que pretende relegar a fé cristã para a intimidade das consciências, ou os esconsos das sacristias, não aceitam que alguém possa, livre e responsavelmente, assumir compromissos definitivos, uma vez que uma tal opção parecem contrariar o sacrossanto princípio da liberdade.

 É o caso dos esposos cristãos, que contraem canonicamente um matrimónio indissolúvel que, no entanto, o ordenamento jurídico positivo não admite como tal, na medida em que qualquer casamento é legalmente passível de rescisão, até mesmo contra a vontade do cônjuge inocente.

Promova-se, com empenho, o direito à liberdade de todos os cidadãos. Contudo, o reconhecimento formal e efectivo desta exigência decorrente da comum e universal dignidade humana, não deve ficar circunscrito ao volúvel capricho do legislador, ou da moda do politicamente correcto, mas contemplar todas as legítimas modalidades do seu responsável exercício. Ora um compromisso conjugal definitivo não só não é uma excepção a essa irrenunciável prerrogativa da condição humana, como uma sua excelente e muito meritória realização. 

Compete ao Estado garantir que a todos sejam dadas todas as condições necessárias para que as suas opções sejam verdadeiramente livres, mas não lhe cabe impedir aquelas escolhas que, mesmo não devendo ser exigidas a todos, podem legitimamente ser queridas por alguns. Um ordenamento jurídico que proíbe qualquer compromisso sério, como é o que pressupõe uma entrega definitiva, com o pretexto de assim salvaguardar a autonomia dos cidadãos, não é apenas uma lei paternalista, mas uma norma que não respeita a liberdade dos indivíduos e que, neste sentido, é potencialmente totalitária. 

Poder-se-ia eventualmente objectar que nada impede que uma pessoa celebre um casamento religioso indissolúvel, mas uma tal observação não colhe porque, para poder fazê-lo, teria que professar alguma religião, o que nem sempre acontece. Com efeito, o sacramento do matrimónio é apenas acessível aos cristãos, pelo que o indivíduo que o não é seria, por este motivo, descriminado pela sua não crença, o que parece ser manifestamente injusto e talvez até anticonstitucional. Por outro lado, não basta que a lei admita essa possibilidade teórica, mas importa que reconheça, de facto, a sua efectividade jurídica, ou seja, que garanta que o regime conjugal livremente escolhido será depois responsavelmente observado. 

É justo que o Estado a ninguém obrigue a casar e é tolerável que admita, no contexto de uma sociedade secularizada, que alguns o possam fazer em regime precário, porque até a Bíblia admitia o repúdio, que Cristo revogou. Mas não é razoável que o ordenamento jurídico não contemple a possibilidade de um matrimónio civil indissolúvel. Portanto, a existência legal de uma união conjugal para sempre deveria ser garantida a todos os cidadãos, quer tenham ou não qualquer filiação religiosa, até porque mesmo os cristãos casados canonicamente carecem do reconhecimento civil da indissolubilidade do seu vínculo conjugal, a que têm direito em nome do princípio da liberdade.  É certo que o próprio não se divorciará se não quiser, mas também é verdade que, só se a lei reconhecer eficácia jurídica à indissolubilidade assumida no pacto nupcial, poder-se-á opor eficazmente ao divórcio pretendido pelo cônjuge. 

Quando o Estado e as instituições internacionais, que aceitam e até impõem o reconhecimento legal das mais abstrusas e instáveis uniões, não permitem a possibilidade jurídica de um matrimónio civil indissolúvel, não só potenciam a falência da família e da sociedade, como também incorrem na mais insanável contradição porque, em nome da liberdade, combatem uma das suas mais nobres e altruístas expressões. 

Malta’s bishops speak out against IVF

In AoM

Pastoral Letter – Celebrating Human Life

 

Cherishing Life
It is indeed positive to note that in our country, there has been an ongoing debate with respect to the way in which a number of couples can address the difficulty of infertilty.  This gives witness just to what extent we cherish human life.  This is even more appreciated when one realizes that in today’s age, in Europe, and in Malta too, a large part of society is stingy with respect to new life, in the sense that the birth rate is low.[1] It is admirable that our society expresses such enthusiasm, particularly in the case of those couples who are called upon to make great sacrifices.

As Bishops of Malta and Gozo, bearing in mind the cultural context of today’s society, we are addressing this Pastoral Letter primarily to the Catholic community of our country; but also to our Maltese and Gozitan brothers and sisters of goodwill who genuinely hold Catholic teachings at heart.[2] It is our duty as spiritual shepherds of this community to guide those Catholics (in the first place, married couples who are experiencing difficulty with procreation, as well as other persons who work in the field of science, politics and the law), in order that they may form their consciences rightly on a subject such as human life, a subject which is so sacred and fundamental.

It is normal for a newly wedded couple to desire children.  It is often the case that when faced with the problem of infertility, a couple feels that it has failed.  This sense of failure is aggravated if this condition arises as a consequence of certain choices which the couple would have made in the past.

As Bishops, we empathize with these couples and we wish to remind them that the fact that they are childless does not mean that their mission as a married couple has been unsuccessful.  We all know of couples who, in spite of being childless, have proved to be worthy in other areas of their lives.  Yet this does not resolve their great desire to communicate their love by becoming parents.  For this reason, we appeal to men of science to carry on with their research, leading them to seek solutions which are ethically and morally good, in order that these married couples may fulfill their genuine and valid desire to become parents.  In our appeal, we are reiterating that which His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stated a few months ago while he was addressing scientists gathered to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. While praising the intellectual honesty of the scientists who seek truth,  he also felt the need to make the following observation: “Scientism and the logic of profit seem effectively to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation today, even to the point of limiting many other areas of research”.[3]
YES to Life
The Church is the Institution which favours life more than any other institution in the world.  It insists that the value of human life must remain untarnished and the Church defends it from the very moment of conception, always striving to bring to light the unique dignity of the human being.  This is in accordance with the will of God, who alone is the Lord of life.  The Church recognizes that human life is not a ‘product’ which may be fashioned, built, used and brushed aside.[4] The Church teaches that no one can “use” a person, at whatever stage of his development, right from the first moment of his existence until the moment of his natural death, whatever his condition. If this fundamental respect is over-looked, science becomes man’s enemy. The Church is fully aware of her duty to defend those who are vulnerable and to give a voice to the voiceless.  The Church strongly reiterates its ‘yes’ to life, particularly when life is at it’s weakest point, such as when a person’s development is in its early stages.

It is in this light that the Church, bearing in mind the principles of natural reason, and confirmed by Revelation, has always insisted upon the fact that science is to be at the authentic service of humanity.  Scientific development must progress within such limits which ensure that fundamental respect towards the person is never lacking, otherwise it becomes an enemy of the human being.

The Church has always taught that authentic service to humanity and the protection and promotion of his dignity cannot be guaranteed unless one abides by the principles of truth about mankind.  This is explained very clearly by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in veritate.  In fact, the Church has always taken loving initiatives (Caritas) in favour of mankind in the light of the truth about the human person.  Charity and truth go hand in hand; it is truth which ensures authentic charity.
The Church has the right and duty to proclaim its moral judgment upon research and upon technical methods used for human reproduction.  By so doing, she is in no way interfering in the scientific field; rather she is fulfilling her mission of bringing to the attention of one and all, the ethical and social responsibilities which arise from any action taken in respect of human beings.

The Truth protects Life

What is the ethical truth regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF) which the Catholic Church, out of love for mankind, and together with all its members, has the duty to proclaim as part of its mission?

According to the teachings of the Church, any medical methods which are used to cure infertility should be based  upon a profound respect for the following three fundamental values:

The value of life and the physical integrity of every person. This must be protected from the very moment of conception until the moment of natural death of the human person, more so when the person is in a vulnerable state.  Any form of discrimination with respect to different stages of life cannot be justified and must be upheld like any other form of discrimination.[5] “From conception, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already”.[6] Some months ago, this most important value was acknowledged at a civil level, that is, human life must be safeguarded from the moment of conception (embryos).[7]

The value of conjugal unity. This unity is manifest in the respect which the married couple foster for one another; in recognizing that in their marriage, they have the right to become parents.  The married man and woman, through their reciprocal gift of love, bring one another to perfection when they cooperate with the Creator in the conception and bearing of children.  For this reason, any couple which accepts a third party to participate in the process of artificial fertilization is in effecting constituting a rupture of their conjual unity, their conjugal fidelity; it also obstructs the right of the married couple to become parents exclusively through their mutual co-operative action.

The value of human sexuality in marriage. The conception of a human person should be the outcome of the mutual self-giving love of the married couple  This gift is realized through their sexual intimacy, an action through which the man and the woman become “one body”.  Therefore, bearing in mind this value, the conception of new life cannot be treated solely as a biological act.  Neither can it be a technical process which produces embryos as if they were objects.  The gift of human life should be eagerly accepted in marriage, which is the ideal and most natural situation for conception to take place, through personal acts which are exclusive and specific to married men and women.  This is in conformity with the teachings of the Church which state that “there is an inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”.[8]

Therefore, every technical method which replaces the personal conjugal act fails to respect the dignity of the human person and of the unity of marriage and so this is not acceptable.  On the other hand,  such technical methods are acceptable when they aid the personal conjugal act to achieve its aim, that is to concieve human life.[9]
The natural law safeguards life
The IVF method calls for the creation of several embryos in order for the desired child to be born.  Even though a number of these embryos are not killed deliberately, but die a ‘natural’ death shortly after they are concieved, the fact remains that several embryos are being sacrificed and instrumentalized so that a child may be born. Both this procedure, as well as the method in which human embryos are being selected in order that a child may be born, confirms that the process, in itself, infringes upon human dignity.  Everything points to the fact that in vitro fertilization methods, which at first glance seem to be at the service of life, are in fact, actually a threat to human life.

At times the scientific process involves the freezing of superfluous embryos (concieved through IVF) which are not selected to be implanted in the mother’s womb (cryo-preservation).  The Church makes it clear that it does not consider the freezing of embryos to be an acceptable solution. The document, Donum Vitae, which was previously referred to states clearly that:  “The freezing of embryos, even when carried out in order to preserve the life of an embryo – cryopreservation – constitutes an offence against the respect due to human beings by exposing them to grave risks of death or harm to their physical integrity and depriving them, at least temporarily, of maternal shelter and gestation, thus placing them in a situation in which further offences and manipulation are possible”.[10]

Parents can never concede to the freezing of their children.  By so doing they would be shirking their responsibility as parents.  On the other hand, if their ‘offspring’ is frozen without their consent, they would be unfairly deprived of their responsibility as parents. Through the freezing of these embryos, mankind is creating new orphanages.  Besides this, the future of these frozen embryos is very bleak.  The embryo, even while it is frozen, is still in possession of certain unalienable rights.  A democratic society is duty-bound to oversee that the laws which protect these embryos are observed.

In some areas, it is being suggested that in order to mitigate the dangers of frozen embryos, such embryos which are not implanted in the mother’s womb are put up for adoption.  This is not a solution either because serious complications of a medical, psychological and legal nature may arise; this also poses greater ethical problems.

The IVF process involves methods which at times considers the person, who is still at the embryonic stage, to be merely “a mass of cells” which may be used, selected and dispensed with.  Many times, a significant number of human embryos are sacrificed for the sake of the birth of the desired child. Such in vitro fertilization practices constitute the meditated and direct destruction of innocent human life.  The Church Magisterium has always considered this destruction of embryos to be abortive.  Blessed John Paul II teaches that:  “Procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”.[11]

Therefore the above-mentioned practices cannot be morally justified in any way and under no circumstances.  It is never morally permissible for a bad action (in this case, the destruction of a number of embryos) to atone for a good cause (in this case, the conception and birth of a desired child).  It is a well-known moral principle that the end does not justify the means.

Human life should be safe-guarded and its integrity promoted from the very moment of conception.  This obligation stems from the dignity of the human person which is at the foundation of all human rights.  Therefore, this is an obligation which stems from the principles of natural law. Every person, because he is a person, has an inherent dignity which must be acknowledged and respected by others. For this reason, civil law would be just or unjust not based upon whether it agrees or disagrees with the religious ethical code, but if it is not in conformity with the human ethical code.  This human ethical code, also referred to as the natural law, does not depend upon positive parliamentary legislation; even more so, it cannot be tarnished or brushed aside by a majority vote in parliament.

It is a fact that in our country, the practice of IVF is widespread.  It has just been reported that during the last 22 years, 750 women became pregnant through this method.  It is also a well-known fact that where civil laws do not regulate the practice of IVF, there is great disorder.  In continuation to what we stated earlier, we feel that civil law in respect of assisted procreation should aim to safe-guard the three values we have already mentioned, ie. the value of life and physical integrity of every person, the value of the unitive aspect of marriage and the value of human sexuality in marriage.

A law which does not safe-guard these values is morally wrong.  There are different levels of ethical gravity emanating out of a law that does not respect these values. For this reason, men of goodwill who are responsible to draw up legislation are duty-bound in conscience to try and achieve the best possible benefits, or as far as possible, to mitigate dangers.
Solidarity with couples who wish to accept the gift of life
The Church, in deep solidarity with couples who are facing problems of infertility, desires that science will continue to develop and offer such technical methods which, without replacing the conjugal act, assist the couple’s fertility processes.  It is the hope of the Church that couples who are combatting infertility will not taken advantage of either psychologically nor financially, especially since their situation already poses enough stress as it is.

The Church is heavily committed in several ways to assist couples who are facing such a situation and to offer proper guidance on the real nature of their condition. First of all, the Church steadfastly encourages couples not to concede to the temptation of taking “easy” solultions simply because these seem technically possible. Not only are these solutions morally wrong, but they are susceptible to danger in that they are to the detriment of the physical and mental health of the couple, most especially the woman.  The Church is also committed to take initiatives that are morally good, in order to assure the utmost respect towards strengthening the couple and towards human life.  Finally, it would be extremely helpful if one were to embark upon a serious scientific study with respect to the cause and prevention of infertility.

For this reason, the Church makes an appeal to all people and reminds them of their obligation to form their conscience properly.  An authentic Christian conscience is formed in the light of the principles of natural law mentioned above and in conformity with the teachings of the Church.  Catholics with a morally and correctly formed conscience are called upon to give witness to the Truth of Love, and this love is confirmed by the same truth.

In this respect we wish to address those couples who have overcome infertility problems by adopting or accepting to foster children.  Their generosity is most exemplary and praiseworthy.  These couples offer hope not only to those children whom they have welcomed into their lives and who are being reared with love and care, but also to those couples, who similarly, are hoping to be parents.

The Church holds close to her heart all those children who are born as a result of IVF methods and confirms that they are still children of God, even if the methods through which they were concieved go against Church teachings and against human dignity.  The Church urges the parents of these children to trust in God’s mercy and to seek the road to self-reconciliation, in line with their call and mission as parents.

We pray for God’s blessing upon all married couples and families of our country and also upon all those who cherish and labour in favour of human life.
Today, 26th July, 2012 Memorial of St Joachim and St Anne.
+ Paul Cremona O.P.
Archbishop of Malta
+ Mario Grech
Bishop of Gozo
.

Click here to view the Pastoral Letter in PDF version.
.

[1]In EU countries, the birth rate is 1.59, a litte higher than ten years ago, however in Malta is decreased from 1.77 in 1999 to 1.38 in 2010. See Eurostat,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsdde220&plugin=0.
[2] Joseph Mercieca and Nikol Cauchi, “Declaration on Artificial Insemination”, 26th July 1995; ibid., “Declaration on Ethical Problems  Related To Assisted Reproduction”, 4th February  2005; ibid., “Declaration on the Protection of Human Life from Conception”, 1st July 2005;  Joseph Mercieca, “The Dignity and Integrity of Human Life”, 21st September 2005; Paul Cremona and Mario Grech, “Pastoral Letter for Advent 2010, The place of the Crib in our families”, 27th  November 2011; Mario Grech, “The sorrow of couples who are unable to bear children”, 30th March 2012.
[3] Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 25th February 2012, par. 2. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120225_acdlife_en.html.
[4] Ibid. par. 5.
[5] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 18th November 1974, par. 12.
[6] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, 22nd February 1987, par. I.1 which quotes from the Declaration on Procured Abortion of the same Congregation, 18th November 1974, par. 12.
[7] European Court of Justice, Oliver Brustle vs Greenpeace, 18th October 2011 decided that human embryos deserved to be respected with human dignity.
[8] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae, 25th July 1968 par. 12. This teaching is repeated in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, 22nd February 1987, p IIB4a
[9] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, Instruction on certain bioethical situations, 8th Settembru 2008, par. 12
[10] Par. I.6.
[11] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 25th March 1995, par. 58

 

quinta-feira, 26 de julho de 2012

Experts Call “Unmet Need” for Family Planning Baseless - by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, July 27 (C-FAM) At the same time governments pledged billions of dollars to push contraception in poor countries based on the idea of an “unmet need” for family planning, an elite group of experts dismissed the term as a poor measure of development aid’s effectiveness.

“The usual numbers bandied about for estimates of ‘unmet need’ do not correspond to any definition of ‘unmet need’ that any economist (or just common sense) could agree to. They are an advocacy construct that has been successfully used in the overall political agenda for promoting family planning,” noted Harvard economist Lant Pritchett. Read More

El COI prohíbe que los aficionados tengan la Biblia o libros religiosos en el recinto olímpico

In Religión en Libertad

El COI ha dado a conocer la lista de exigencias para los aficionados durante los Juegos Olímpicos, entre las que se encuentra la prohibición expresa de que ningún material impreso o libro de carácter religioso podrá ser introducido en los estadios.

Una medida que choca curiosamente con las Olimpiadas de Pekín 2008, cuando las autoridades chinas permitieron que todos aquellos que lo desearan pudieran disponer de Biblias, Nuevos Testamentos, informa Libertad Digital.

El COI, como siempre, se ha excusado en que pretende aislar el deporte de cualquier conflicto religioso o político, exactamente el mismo motivo por el que no quiso llevar a cabo ningún homenaje a los atletas israelíes asesinados en Munich hace ahora 40 años.

Más prohibiciones
Otra de las prohibiciones a los aficionados será la de portar camisetas con marcas, a no ser que sea alguna de las patrocinadoras, así como con mensajes políticos. Tampoco se podrá introducir comida ni bebida en ninguno de los recintos, salvo que sea para bebés. Obviamente, todo a favor de McDonalds y Coca-Cola, que estarán muy presentes en Londres durante los Juegos.

Tampoco las vuvuzelas
Otras medidas restrictivas es que los aficionados no lleven a los eventos con grandes cantidades de monedas, pues éstas podrían ser utilizados como arma arrojadiza. También, estarán prohibidos los bates, armas de fuego, mástiles de banderas, sprays, cuchillos... así como las famosas vuvuzelas, de moda en el Mundial de Sudáfrica, y que serán prohibidas –junto con pitos, tambores o cuernos- para no molestar al resto de aficionados, índica Libertad Digital.

Discriminación hacía los heterosexuales
Por su parte, Mark Russell y su esposa Lauryn, tiradores del equipo australiano han manifestado que se les discrimina “por ser heterosexuales”, informa Forum Libertas.

Mark Russell afirma que él y su esposa Lauryn están siendo discriminados, y afirman que saben de parejas homosexuales que comparten habitación en la Vila Olímpica con autorización expresa de los organizadores. Cuando hicieron la solicitud se les dijo que tendría que alquilar una habitación en un hotel si quería compartir una cama, a lo que la pareja responde que siempre comparten una habitación durante los campeonatos más importantes de todo el mundo.

Russell ha afirmado que está siendo discriminado porque no puede compartir la habitación con su mujer atleta, mientras que las parejas homosexuales pueden.

Según el mismo diario, la decisión fue tomada por un episodio sucedido en Australia en el que Russell se enfrentó a la AOC debido al consumo de éste de píldoras para dormir. La AOC prohibió ese tipo de medicamentos en los Juegos Olímpicos, pero Russell respondió que para él eran “esenciales para ayudar a desempeñarse mejor”.

Su esposa Lauryn también cree que las desavenencias con la AOC se derivan de su participación en una sesión de fotos para la revista Zoo vestida con un bikini y sosteniendo una escopeta. Unas fotografías cuya recaudación está dirigida para el Hospital Royal Children.

“La parte tonta de esto –ha afirmado el tirador australiano-, es que les he contestado que hay un montón de parejas gay en el equipo olímpico que tendrán el alojamiento de forma conjunta, por lo que estamos siendo discriminados por nuestra condición de heterosexuales”.

Además, Russell argumentó que el problema deriva “de mi postura sobre las pastillas para dormir”. Russell añadió que era evidente que los funcionarios tenían un problema con ellos y que se les estaba castigando.

Obispo católico escocés podría ir a la cárcel si critica “matrimonio” gay

GLASGOW, 25 Jul. 12 / 10:02 pm (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- El recientemente designado Arzobispo de Glasgow (Escocia), Mons. Philip Tartaglia, señaló que es posible que vaya a la cárcel si critica el mal llamado “matrimonio” gay y defiende el auténtico matrimonio conformado por un hombre y una mujer.

En una entrevista concedida a STV News, el Prelado dijo que “puedo verme yendo posiblemente a la cárcel en algún momento de los siguientes 15 años (…) , si es que hablo”.

Los comentarios del Arzobispo electo se dan cuando el gobierno de Escocia ha anunciado que legislará a favor del mal llamado “matrimonio” gay, a lo que Mons. Tartaglia respondió precisando que algo así “tendría enormes implicancias para la libertad religiosa”.

En declaraciones a ACI Prensa el 24 de julio, el Prelado de 61 años de edad dijo estar “profundamente preocupado porque hoy, defender el significado tradicional del matrimonio es casi considerando como un ‘discurso de odio’ y calificado como intolerante. Esa es una respuesta no democrática, que cierra el debate y que es altamente manipuladora”.

El mes pasado, el abogado escocés Aidan O’Neill advirtió que la legislación sobre las uniones homosexuales podría hacer que algunos sean despedidos de sus trabajos si es que se oponen a estas parejas.

Asimismo alertó del hecho que los sacerdotes y ministros podrían ser demandados por no permitir “bodas” de este tipo en sus iglesias, los niños serían obligados a asistir a clases de historia “gay” y las parejas podrían ser rechazadas como padres adoptivos si se opusieran a la nueva legislación.

“Soy consciente del lugar histórico de la arquidiócesis de Glasgow en la historia de la cristiandad en Escocia y de su importancia para la comunidad católica en particular”, dijo el Prelado a los medios en conferencia de prensa.

Mons. Tartaglia fue designado Arzobispo de Glasgow el 24 de julio por el Papa Benedicto XVI. El Prelado sucede al arzobispo Mario Conti, quien estuvo al frente de la arquidiócesis desde el año 2002. Mons. Conti dijo sentirse “contento” con la elección de su sucesor.

La arquidiócesis de Glasgow, la más grande de Escocia, tiene una población estimada de unos 200 mil católicos.

Mons. Tartaglia era Obispo de Pasley desde el año 2005. Antes de eso fue Rector del Colegio Escocés en Roma. La Misa de toma de posesión en la catedral de Glasgow será el sábado 8 de septiembre, fiesta de la Natividad de la Virgen María.

quarta-feira, 25 de julho de 2012

The Campaign for Humanae Vitae - by Charles E. Rice

In CRISIS

The year 2018 will mark the 50th, or Golden, anniversary of Humanae Vitae (HV), in which Paul VI restated what had been, until 1930, an unbroken and universal Christian teaching.  Today, on HV’s 44th anniversary, the Bellarmine Forum is launching The Campaign for Humanae Vitae.  Our goal is to gather a million signatures on our petition conveying to the Holy Father and our bishops our prayerful gratitude, encouragement, and support for their efforts to preach and to defend this vital teaching of the Magisterium.

Why now?  Consider this:  my colleague on the Notre Dame faculty, Professor Gary Gutting, has proclaimed in the New York Times that “it is not for the bishops but for the faithful to decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority,” and that, in matters of sexual morality, “Catholics have decisively rejected it.”  Therefore, Professor Gutting concludes, “The immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church… the issue has been settled by the voice of the Catholic people.”[1]

Professor Gutting really believes that.  But he’s wrong.  Here’s why.

Lambeth

The Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 was the first time any Christian denomination ever said that contraception could be a morally good choice.  The Lambeth Conference in 1908 had condemned contraception in words that could have been written by John Paul II or Benedict XVI.[2]  Since Lambeth 1930, Pius XI and the succeeding Popes have continued to teach that contraception is wrong, first, because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act; second, by so changing the nature of the act, the man and woman make themselves, rather than God, the arbiters of whether and when life shall begin; and third, contraception frustrates the total mutual self-donation that is essential to the conjugal act.   Contraception also implies that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living—the life of the child whose existence the contraceptors choose to prevent.

The Truce of 1968

The advent of the Pill in the 1960s increased the use of contraceptives among Catholics and others. The promulgation of HV in 1968 precipitated a storm of dissent.  In 1968, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington, D.C., disciplined nineteen priests who had dissented publicly from HV.  Three years later the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy ordered Cardinal O’Boyle to lift canonical penalties from those priests who told him privately that they agreed that the teaching on “the objective evil of contraception” was “an authentic expression of [the] magisterium.”  The Congregation explicitly refrained from requiring that priests who had dissented publicly must retract their dissent publicly.  George Weigel described the effects of this “Truce of 1968:”

What I [argued] in my 2002 book, The Courage to be Catholic, and what I would still argue today, is that the Truce of 1968 (exemplified by the settlement of the Washington Case) taught various lessons to…the Church in America.

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, if controversy were likely to follow; Rome, fearing schism, was nervous about public action against dissent.  The result…was that “a generation of Catholic bishops came to think of themselves less as authoritative teachers than as moderators of an ongoing dialogue whose primary responsibility was to keep everyone in the conversation and in play.”

And Catholic lay people learned… “that virtually everything in the Church was questionable: doctrine, morals, the priesthood, the episcopate, the lot.”  Thus the impulse toward Cafeteria Catholicism got a decisive boost from the Truce of 1968: if the bishops and the Holy See were not going to defend seriously the Church’s teaching on this matter, then picking-and-choosing in a supermarket of doctrinal and moral possibilities seemed, not simply all right, but actually admirable—an exercise in maturity, as was often suggested at the time.[3]
The Failure of the Bishops

The American bishops, with exceptions, have miserably failed to educate Catholics and others on HV and the similar teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  The bishops on the national level have made some commendable efforts to correct the situation. But generations of parishioners—and students whose religion classes focus on collages, banners and political correctness—are still paying the price.  The result is an appalling ignorance among Catholics of HV and other Catholic doctrines and principles. A Gallup poll released in May 2012 found that 82% of Catholics in America believe contraception is “morally acceptable.”[4]  “If you love me,” said Jesus Christ, “keep my commandments.”[5]  But if someone had kept a log of homilies delivered in the United States over the past fifty years, what would be the ratio between generalized exhortations to “love” and specific explanations of the Commandments?  No contest.  But this cannot be blamed simply on parish priests.  As Dean Emeritus Jude Dougherty, of the School of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America, put it: “From the pulpit, when have you ever heard a sermon on any one of the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the virtues?  It takes a genius, and few have the talent, to make sense of the disparate biblical readings, which lend themselves to storybook repetition, rather than to the preaching of doctrine.  And then there are those petitions, often self-contradictory, often the reflection of someone’s political and social agenda, as if the petitions in the canon of the Mass were not enough.” [6]

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), acknowledged both the failure of the bishops and the hunger, especially among young adults, for more authoritative teaching on sexuality:

Doesn’t the church have a problem conveying its moral principles to its own flock?  “Do we ever!” the archbishop replies with a hearty laugh.  “I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach.  That’s a biggie.”

For this he faults the church leadership.  “We have gotten gun-shy…in speaking…on chastity and sexual morality.”  He dates this diffidence to “the…60’s, when the whole world seemed to be caving in, and where Catholics…got the impression that what the Second Vatican Council taught…is that we should be chums with the world, and that the best thing the church can do is become more and more like everyone else.”

The “flash point,” the archbishop says, was “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical….  It “brought such a tsunami of dissent, departure, disapproval of the church, that I think most of us—and I’m using the first person plural intentionally, including myself—kind of subconsciously said, ‘Whoa, we’d better never talk about that, because it’s just too hot to handle.’  We forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day.”

Without my having raised the subject, he adds that the church’s sex-abuse scandal “intensified our laryngitis over speaking about issues of chastity and sexual morality, because we almost thought, ‘I’ll blush if I do….  After what some priests and some bishops, albeit a tiny minority, have done, how will I have any credibility in speaking on that?’”

Yet the archbishop says he sees a hunger, especially among young adults, for a more authoritative church voice on sexuality.  “They will be quick to say, ‘By the way, we want you to know that we might not be able to obey it…. But we want to hear it.  And in justice, you as our pastors need to tell us, and you need to challenge us.”[7]
In a recent address to American bishops, Benedict XVI understated the point:  “Certainly we must acknowledge deficiencies in the catechesis of recent decades, which failed at times to communicate the rich heritage of Catholic teaching on marriage as a natural institution elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, the vocation of Christian spouses in society and in the Church, and the practice of marital chastity.” [8]

The Church Goes to Court

Pursuant to the Law of Unintended Consequences, Obama’s Health Care Mandate has opened for the bishops a clear field to advance the truth of HV.

The Mandate requires almost all religious organizations and other employers, or the employer’s insurer, to provide insurance coverage for their employees for contraception, abortifacient “contraceptives” and sterilization. Lawsuits challenging the Mandate were filed last May by Catholic dioceses, hospitals, schools, church agencies and universities. The lawsuits claim that the Mandate violates the Constitution and federal laws, including the religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. As the bishops correctly insist, the suits do not themselves involve the legal status of contraception or the merits of the Church’s teaching on contraception.  Those suits are not resolved by the Supreme Court’s recent upholding of Obamacare’s Individual Mandate requiring individuals to buy health care insurance for themselves.

A Teaching Moment

In violating the fundamental right of religious freedom, Obama has given to the Church a teaching moment on two issues:  1. Conscience, and 2. Contraception.  The bishops have preserved their ability to use that teaching moment.  A letter they ordered read in every parish in the land said: “We cannot—we will not– comply with this unjust law.”[9]  But why is that law unjust?  Because it compels, contrary to conscience, immoral cooperation with an intrinsic evil—contraception.

Conscience

The bishops have an opening to teach the American people that the “dictatorship of relativism” trivializes conscience by reducing it to an expression of personal taste with no transcendent claim to immunity against oppression by the State.

“Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.”[10]  A properly formed conscience will judge that the Mandate compels immoral cooperation with contraception and abortion.   As Cardinal Raymond Burke said, “It is not only a matter of what we call ‘material cooperation’ in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people.  There is no way to justify it.  It is simply wrong.”[11]

The Unjust Law

When the bishops said, “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” they were not kidding.  Some laws are unjust as contrary to “human good” because they are beyond the authority of the lawgiver, are oppressive or seriously violate equality.  We may have to obey such laws (think of the income tax) to avoid a greater evil.   But, as St. Thomas Aquinas further said, “laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good; such are the laws of tyrants inducing to … anything … contrary to the Divine law; and laws of this kind must nowise be observed.”[12] If a law compelled a physician to perform an abortion, he would be morally obliged to disobey even on pain of death.   And the same goes for the bishops and others compelled by the Mandate to cooperate immorally in a violation of the divine law.  They must—and they do– refuse to obey.  They deserve our gratitude, vocal support and, especially, prayer.

Contraception as a Denial of God

If the State is above conscience so as to be able to compel one to violate the law of God, then the State is God.  Obama can get away with such an edict only because the American people have lost their recognition of God’s law as a rule of life.  Thirteen days after 9/11, Pope John Paul II warned the leaders of Kazakhstan against a “slavish conformity” to Western culture which is in a “deepening human, spiritual and moral impoverishment” caused by “the fatal attempt to secure the good of humanity by eliminating God, the Supreme Good.”[13]

The practice of contraception leads to loss of faith in God and the displacement of the law of God by the law of the State.  As Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914-2000) said: “[T]he single, principal cause for the breakdown of the Catholic faith in materially overdeveloped countries like ours has been contraception.  St. James tells us that faith without good works is dead.  What good is it to give verbal profession of the Catholic faith, and then behave like a pagan in marital morality?” [14]

When a man and woman change the nature of the conjugal act in order to prevent new life, they put themselves, rather than God, in charge of deciding whether and when human life shall begin and, implicitly, when it shall end.  As Pope John Paul II put it, “When…through contraception, married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God; the power to decide, in a final analysis, the coming into existence of a human person.” [15]

The Impact of Contraception

 The abandonment of HV by the American Church has practical consequences.  “If a person can violate [by contraception] the natural integrity of the moral act with moral impunity,” said Dean William J. Kenealy, S.J., of Boston College Law School two decades before HV, “then I challenge anyone to show me the essential immorality of any sexual aberration.”[16] “Contraceptive sex is the fundamental social fact of our time.”[17]  Mary Eberstadt of the Hoover Institution has analyzed social science data confirming that the sexual revolution triggered by the Pill is an accelerating disaster, especially for its main victims—women and children.  If you make yourself the arbiter of whether and when life shall begin, you will predictably put yourself in charge of when life shall end, as in abortion, euthanasia and suicide.  The contraceptive society cannot deny legitimacy to homosexual activity without denying itself.  If it is man’s decision as to whether sex will have any relation to procreation, then the only objections to same-sex “marriage,” polygamy, bestiality, etc., are reduced to the aesthetic and arbitrary.  The separation of sex from procreation undercuts any reservation of sex for marriage and any reason for permanence of marriage.  It also encourages the objectification of women by pornography.[18]  Eberstadt correctly says HV “warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.”[19]  Eberstadt fittingly quotes Archbishop Charles Chaput: “If Paul VI were right about so many of the consequences deriving from contraception, it is because he was right about contraception itself.”

When an objective history of this period is written, the practical abandonment by the American Catholic Church of the theretofore unbroken Christian teaching on contraception will be seen as astonishing, craven and frivolous.

An Opening for Humanae Vitae

Obama’s Mandate, however, creates an opening for the bishops.  The truth about contraception can have a life-changing impact, and not only on Catholics.  “The effective separation of sex from procreation,” said R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “may be one of the most important defining marks of our age—and one of the most ominous.   This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals and it threatens to set loose a firestorm… [E]vangelicals are rethinking…birth control—and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies.”  [20]

HV is a game-changer because it challenges the core of the secularist, relativist and individualist religion of America’s ruling class.  The nobility of that teaching can have an impressive impact on young people.  With John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church has seen a rebirth of faith among the young.  But many of them lack a solid foundation.  “One cannot escape,” said John Paul II, “the fact that more than in any other historical period, there is a breakdown in the process of handing on moral and religious values between generations.”[21]  John Paul and Benedict have called on the bishops to fix that breakdown.

The Campaign for Humanae Vitae

On its 40th anniversary, Benedict emphasized the centrality of HV:

Forty years after its publication [HV] not only expresses its unchanged truth but also reveals [its] farsightedness….  The Magisterium [must reflect] on the fundamental principles that concern marriage and procreation.  ….The truth expressed in [HV] does not change; on the contrary, precisely in the light of the new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more timely and elicits reflection on [its] intrinsic value….  The urgent need for education…primarily concerns the theme of life.  I…hope that young people…will be given very special attention so that they may learn the true meaning of love and prepare for it…without [being] distracted by ephemeral messages that prevent them from reaching the essence of the truth at stake….  The teaching expressed by [HV] conforms with the fundamental structure through which life has always been transmitted since the world’s creation, with respect for nature and…its needs.  Concern for human life and safeguarding the person’s dignity require us not to leave anything untried so that all may be involved in the genuine truth of responsible conjugal love in full adherence to the law engraved on the heart of every person.[22]
Cardinal Dolan frankly admitted that the bishops have doubted that the Catholic people of the United States would accept a forthright teaching of HV.  But, as Benedict XVI noted in his homily on July 15, 2012, the prophet Amos preached “what God says and not what people wanted to hear.”  In our times, Benedict said, “This remains the mandate of the Church: she does not preach what the powerful want to hear.  Her criterion is truth and justice, even if that garners no applause and collides with human power.”[23]

The Campaign for Humanae Vitae will offer to the bishops and to the Holy Father the support of Catholic people who plead for the Church to proclaim and teach the truth of HV.
On the 50th anniversary of HV in 2018, we aim to present one million signatures to the bishops to make that anniversary a celebration, a Golden occasion to thank God for the Truth affirmed by HV and the Magisterium.

The “nuclear weapon” of the Campaign for Humanae Vitae, however, is prayer—for our country and for our Church, especially through the intercession of Mary, the mother of Life.  As John Paul II wrote in a letter to U.S. bishops in 1993, “America needs much prayer—lest it lose its soul.”[24]



[1] Gary Gutting, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15.
[2] See Allan Carlson, “Children of the Reformation,” Touchstone, May 2007; www.touchstonemag.com.
[3] George Weigel, “The ‘Truce of 1968,’ once again,” www.dioceseofmarquette.org; May 17, 2006.
[4] LifeSiteNews.com, May 28, 2012.
[5] John 14:15.
[6] Jude P. Dougherty, “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,” The Wanderer, May 3, 2012, p. 4A.
[7] James Taranto, “When the Archbishop Met the President,” online.wsj.com, March 31, 2012.
[8] Pope Benedict XVI to American bishops, Ad limina, March 14, 2012.
[9] www.theblaze.com, Jan. 30, 2012.
[10] Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1796.
[11] www.lifenews.com/2012/04/10
[12] ST. I, II Q. 96, art. 4.
[13] Pope John Paul II, Address, Sept. 24, 2011.
[14] John A. Hardon, S.J., “Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life,” Eternal Life, April 19, 1999, 27, 29.
[15] Pope John Paul II, Discourse, September 17, 1983.
[16] 46 Catholic Mind (1948), 11.
[17] Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution, (2012), 157.
[18] Eberstadt, op. cit., Chapters 2 and 3.
[19] Ibid., p. 136.
[20] Russell Shorto, “Contra-Contraception,” New York Times Magazine, May 7, 2006, 48, 50.
[21] Pope John Paul II, Address, March 16, 2002.
[22] Pope Benedict XVI, Address, May 10, 2008
[23] LifeSiteNews.com, July 16, 2012.
[24] Pope John Paul II, Letter to the U.S. Bishops, June 11, 1993; 38 The Pope Speaks (1993), 374, 376.

terça-feira, 24 de julho de 2012

La prueba más dura - por Juan Manuel de Prada

Algunos de mis amigos se han apartado de la práctica religiosa, o incluso han renegado de la Iglesia ´institucional´, porque han descubierto en muchos católicos una inconsecuencia fatal entre la fe que aseguran profesar y las obras por las que, según reza el Evangelio, se deben distinguir los verdaderos discípulos de Jesús. Este mal del fariseísmo metido en el corazón de la Iglesia es sin duda el más grave de cuantos corrompen la fe, y el más difícil obstáculo para la evangelización: no en vano Jesús hizo de la lucha contra el fariseísmo un empeño personal constante (no hay pecado que reciba más condenas y execraciones en su predicación); y no en vano sus detractores más enconados, quienes finalmente lo llevaron a la Cruz, fueron los fariseos maquinadores, que no soportaban su denuncia implacable y acérrima: raza de víboras, sepulcros blanqueados, etcétera.

El fariseísmo es la causa principal de la apostasía generalizada que aflige a la Iglesia; a esta causa endógena se suman, por supuesto, otras muchas exógenas que, sin embargo, se derrumbarían como un castillo de naipes si la gente que es incitada a desertar de la fe descubriera entre quienes se supone que no hemos desertado una auténtica comunidad de fe y vida, una congruencia natural entre lo que decimos y lo que hacemos. Por supuesto, no debemos confundir las inevitables debilidades de la naturaleza humana, consecuencia de nuestra condición pecadora, con el fariseísmo, que es más bien lo contrario: pues el fariseo suele ser persona soberbia y de corazón endurecido que se cree invulnerable a las asechanzas del pecado que afligen al resto de los mortales; y desde esta atalaya de engreimiento construye una religiosidad de pura fachada, una especie de fe desecada, esclerotizada, que acaba convirtiéndose en impostura.

Leonardo Castellani, que nunca se cansó de denunciar el fariseísmo, estableció en su grandiosa obra Los papeles de Benjamín Benavides una gradación de este mal corruptor sumamente ilustrativa: 1) La religión se vuelve meramente exterior y ostentatoria; 2) La religión se vuelve profesión y oficio; 3) La religión se vuelve instrumento de ganancia, de honores, poder o dinero; 4) La religión se vuelve pasivamente dura, insensible, desencarnada; 5) La religión se vuelve hipocresía, y el ´santo´ hipócrita empieza a despreciar y aborrecer a los que tienen religión verdadera; 6) El corazón de piedra se vuelve cruel, activamente duro; y 7) El falso creyente persigue a los verdaderos creyentes con saña ciega, con fanatismo implacable. En esta gradación, Castellani distingue entre los tres primeros peldaños, que son los más tristemente habituales, y los cuatro últimos, que califica con razón de diabólicos.

Del fariseísmo de ´primera velocidad´ todos tenemos experiencia cotidiana: es la religión convertida en fachada y aspaviento, la sal que se vuelve sosa, el «profesionalismo de la religión» que decía Thibon: es un mal que prospera sobre todo en circunstancias en las que la fe obtiene un reconocimiento social; y en donde, a la vez que una multitud de no creyentes impostan ciertos gestos externos de afectada religiosidad o rutinario clericalismo, unos cuantos avispados aprovechan para sacar tajada y hacer negocio. En épocas como la nuestra, en las que la religión deja de tener el reconocimiento social de antaño, este fariseísmo de ´primera velocidad´ tiende a desaparecer, aunque conserva su radio de acción de puertas adentro; en cambio, el fariseísmo de ´segunda velocidad´, el más terrible y odioso, se desarrolla con una pujanza voraz y busca las estructuras de poder de la Iglesia, haciéndose a veces, incluso, con las varas de mando.

Ya no tiene nada que ver con la hipocresía untuosa, con la santurronería adulona, con la ambicioncilla o intrigilla clericaloide (aunque, desde luego, las incluye), sino que se regodea en la perfidia y en el crimen, en la persecución inquisitorial del justo y en la traición de la verdadera fe, de la que el fariseo se presenta paradójicamente como su cumplidor más celoso. De la actividad de estos fariseos de segunda velocidad no tenemos una experiencia cotidiana visible, puesto que se desenvuelven en lugares donde la fe se torna burocracia y negociado; pero los efectos de su actividad contaminan toda la obra de la Iglesia. Y, cuando uno se topa con uno de estos fariseos, aunque su fe sea robusta como un roble, tiembla como un frágil junco. Es la prueba más dura a la que podemos enfrentarnos.

www.juanmanueldeprada.com