Two Popes and today’s sexual chaos - by Judie Brown

April 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canonization is always a special event in the Catholic Church. But history will be made two days from now as two recent popes—both of whom have had a profound effect on the Church, her theology, and the world—will be elevated to sainthood.

The first of these, Pope John XXIII, presided over the opening of the Second Vatican Council. That alone made him a controversial pope in the eyes of those with the misguided notion that convening this council was the beginning ofmodernism in the Church. The fact is that the council did not open the doors to error. The misinterpretation of Vatican II documents was preceded by years of misguided attitudes propagated by wayward priests, bishops, and lay theologians. 

But that’s a story for another day. Suffice it to say, Pope John XXIII had the most honorable of intentions. He opened the council on October 11, 1962, saying among other things: “The Church has always opposed . . . errors. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.” 

Though he died just eight months later, the phrase “medicine of mercy” has been tossed about like Frisbee. Some have interpreted it to mean that Vatican II documents teach that it is better to be kind than it is to expect the adherence to truth and the avoidance of sin. This attitude could not be further from the truth.

For example, in May 1961, Pope John XXIII taught in Mater et Magistra:

We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable, and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.

Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.

Here we find the Holy Father illuminating the undeniable truth that respecting human dignity is not optional if one desires to live in a way that is pleasing to God. In other words, living in accordance with Catholic teaching means accepting and sharing the “medicine of mercy.” Nothing in Vatican II documents denies this.

Further, Pope John Paul II taught in 1995, “Despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.”

We can conclude, therefore, that genuine mercy can only be communicated if we understand this virtue and how we must live it, speak it, and share it. Aquinas tells us that mercy signifies our grief for the sins of another person. Expressing this requires our conscious decision to aid someone in error—showing him the wrongdoing and helping him find in Christ the will to repent. 

Whether that action involves abortion, contraception, or other threats to the human person, when we become the ministers of the medicine of mercy we help them by sharing truth in love. We are, by our lives and actions, guiding the wayward to encounter truth, repentance, and forgiveness.

This is the essence of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II’s legacy.

So, as we think about these soon-to-be saints, let us ask each of them to intercede for us that we may courageously oppose cruelty toward every one of our brothers and sisters while administering the medicine of mercy to a culture filled with human beings suffering sexual chaos.

Misericórdia - por Nuno Serras Pereira

27. 09. 2013

Algum tempo depois de, como filho pródigo, ter regressado à Igreja, isto é a Jesus Cristo total, Cabeça e corpo, para usar uma expressão de Santo Agostinho, comecei a ler o jornal L’ Osservatore Romano na sua totalidade – Pontificava então o Papa Paulo VI. Este hábito de ler tudo o que promanava dos Santos Padres tem-se mantido até os dias de hoje. Provavelmente aqueles que não estão a par das coisas eclesiais não saberão que isto significa que li e meditei muitos milhares, mas mesmo muitos, de páginas. Já não tenho grande memória de Paulo VI, mas no que diz respeito a João Paulo II e a Bento XVI posso testemunhar que os seus pontificados foram marcados essencialmente pelo Amor/Misericórdia. Não me refiro somente à Encíclica de João Paulo II sobre Deus rico em Misericórdia (tema que está presente em todos os seus documentos e talvez de um modo mais marcante na Veritatis Splendor, na Evangelium Vitae e na Redemptoris Missio) ou às de Bento XVI sobre a Caridade /Amor/Misericórdia. Mas esses luminosos Pontificados foram marcados por uma proximidade, um abeiramento samaratiano de cada pessoa humana, desde o seu início até ao seu termo. Se há verdade que o mundo e a Igreja têm escutado até à saturação, que ninguém desconheça dentro e fora da Igreja, a não ser os recém-nascidos, é que Deus é Misericórdia. Não há homilia que o omita, nem catequese que só disso fale, nem artigo de opinião ou entrevista radiofónica ou televisiva a católicos, Cardeais, Bispos, sacerdotes ou leigos que nisso não insista. Isso é muito claro, por exemplo, quando conversando com pessoas que se dirigem a uma “clínica” ou “maternidade” ou hospital para abortarem dizem que não faz mal nenhum matarem a seus filhos, porque Deus é misericordioso e perdoa: “não faz mal”, asseguram com um sorriso. É mesmo em nome da Misericórdia que catequistas ensinam as suas crianças sobre a bondade do aborto, da contracepção, da homossexualidade e do “casamento” entre pessoas do mesmo sexo; e também sacerdotes, até no confessionário, aconselham essas coisas, tudo em nome da Misericórdia. Um ministro da Comunhão, só para dar um exemplo, obrigou a sua filha abortar e, apesar de isto ser público e notório, tanto o pároco como o Bispo acharam, em nome da misericórdia, por bem que ele continuasse a distribuir a Sagrada Comunhão. A mesma misericórdia serve ainda de justificação aos políticos que se intitulam católicos, votarem favoravelmente a eutanásia, o aborto, o casamento “gay”; e de pretexto a Bispos e Cardeais de lhes darem entusiasticamente a Sagrada Comunhão e de os convidarem, como exemplos, para palestrarem ao povo de Deus. Essa pastoral, da “misericórdia” e do “amor” vazios de conteúdo, conhecemo-la aqui na Europa há muitos anos e os seus resultados estão à vista – não podiam ser mais devastadores. 

Evidentemente que nem S. João Paulo II nem Bento XVI são responsáveis por estes abusos, pelo contrário. Mas não me venham dizer que somente agora é que a Igreja anunciará a Misericórdia de Deus e o amor de Jesus como Salvador como contexto para tudo o mais. Porque afirmar isso é uma falsidade infame. Se há ícone da Misericórdia que ficará como eminente na história da Igreja esse será sem margem para dúvida o Papa João Paulo II. Já nos esquecemos dos milhões de pessoas que ele converteu ou aproximou da Igreja e de Deus, das multidões inumeráveis que se abeiraram da confissão sacramental, etc., etc.? Mas este mesmo Papa que estendeu a devoção da Divina Misericórdia (Santa Faustina) e proclamou o Domingo depois do da Páscoa como Domingo da Misericórdia (e Deus veio buscá-lo nessa solenidade para o levar para junto de si) percebeu muito bem que não se podia somente insistir nessa tecla mas que era preciso dar-lhe um conteúdo substancial e aí tinha, nos dias de hoje, uma proeminência vital o aborto e eutanásia (Evangelium vitae - defesa da vida nos seus momentos mais vulneráveis), os ataques à família (Familiaris consortio; carta às famílias; direitos da família) e a contracepção (Teologia do corpo – como comentário à Humanae vitae). As vítimas, os feridos, mutilados, desfeitos, estilhaçados por essas violências brutais – nos dias de hoje perante a avalanche imensa de estudos e dados empíricos, é impossível ignorá-los – são infinitamente maiores do que as vítimas das guerras horrorosas, a que todos nos opomos. E, no entanto, ninguém, nem mesmo eu!, na Igreja quer ou pede que se insista somente nesses assuntos - de onde terá surgido ideia tão insólita e abstrusa? O que espanta nos dias de hoje é o silêncio sepulcral sobre eles ou raridade (se tivermos em conta os documentos da Santa Sé e dos Episcopados o aborto, o “casamento” gay e a contracepção muito provavelmente não representarão sequer 0, 1 por cento dos assuntos tratados) com que são abordados e a insistência em outros pontos que também são morais e também “vêm depois”: a guerra e a paz, a pobreza, os refugiados, os imigrantes, os doentes, etc. (assuntos aliás de que todo o mundo fala com consenso universal).

Todos os anos se celebra o dia mundial da Paz acompanhado de oração em todas as Igrejas do mundo, com homilias, palestras, conferências; há sempre uma longa mensagem dos Santos Padres amplamente difundida não só pelos órgãos da Igreja mas também pelos grandes média e pela internet – blogues, redes sociais, etc. O tema costuma reaparecer diversas vezes ao longo do ano quer no Angelus do Santo Padre, quer nas suas Catequeses, quer nas Dioceses, quer nas orações universais das Missas de Domingo, quer no terço diário rezado nos grandes Santuários Marianos. E de vez em quando os Papas convocam vigílias de oração não só em Roma como por todo o mundo, congregando centenas de milhares de pessoas, só na praça de S. Pedro, e ali estão 3 ou 4 horas em oração. Todos os anos há o dia das migrações e a respectiva mensagem e as peregrinações e se for preciso um Papa deitando uma coroa de flores aos mares por causa das centenas de vítimas de traficantes sem escrúpulos. E há ainda o dia dos doentes, também com uma mensagem papal e com preces nas Igrejas por todo o orbe (que aliás acontecem praticamente todos os dias nas Missas e na Liturgia das Horas e nos Terços desfiados nos Santuários Marianos). Nas audiências os enfermos são abençoados, acariciados, abraçados; em todas as viagens apostólicas os Papas sempre se querem encontrar com eles e dirigir-lhes uma palavra, confortá-los. E podíamos continuar dando mais exemplos da solicitude materna da Igreja pela grande maioria dos já nascidos. 

Creio que não passará pela cabeça de ninguém (talvez tenha ocorrido a Nietzsche, mas não se trata de uma cabeça propriamente recomendável) dizer que se trata de uma obsessão e que a Igreja não pode estar sempre a insistir no mesmo. Ora a verdade, como é patente a todos, é que as pessoas na sua etapa embrionária e nascitura não têm, repito, não têm um ínfimo da atenção, solicitude e diligência por parte da Igreja que todos estes outros. O Santo Padre num Angelus referiu, e muitíssimo bem, que tinha ficado com o coração ferido ao ver na tv os mil e tal mortos, entre os quais muitas crianças, num ataque na Síria. Mas não lhe sangra, e se sangra não poderá dizê-lo também?, os mais de mil mortos num só dia trucidados em Itália e em França? Porque não depositar uma coroa de flores e celebrar Missa à porta de um Hospital ou de uma clínica onde se dizimam bebés – é impopular, não é? Mas estou em que é de toda a justiça. Porque não convocar um dia de jejum e oração universal pelos 50 milhões de pessoas abortadas anualmente (falo só dos cirúrgicos)? Por que não receber sobreviventes de abortos falhados e falar disso? e mulheres que abortaram e que publicamente dizem do seu arrependimento? e matadores em série de embriões e nascituros que foram convertidos pelos obcecados fanáticos? e os predadores homossexuais que foram curados? e os casais desfeitos por causa da contracepção que em virtude da aprendizagem dos “métodos” naturais reencontraram o amor e o equilíbrio? e os estilhaçados por “tratamentos artificiais” que para conseguirem ter filhos mataram uma data deles e não tiveram sucesso vindo depois a encontra-lo na Napro technology? Os cristãos que se têm empenhado nesta missão evangélica são misericordiosos, tomam a seu cargo as pessoas, acompanhando-as como o bom samaritano que lava, limpa, unge, levanta o seu próximo com pureza evangélica sabendo que Deus é maior que qualquer pecado. Pela Graça de Deus são capazes aquecer os corações das pessoas, de caminhar na noite com elas, de dialogar de descer às suas noites, nas suas trevas, sem perder-se. Não se limitam a acolher e receber as pessoas mas procuram novos caminhos saindo de si mesmos e indo ao encontro de quem abandonou a Igreja, ou nunca a frequentou ou lhe é indiferente ou mesmo hostil E fazem-no com grande audácia e coragem.

Porque é que se pode falar, como uma insistência desusada em tantos outras questões morais tais como mundanidade, carreirismo, maledicência, cobiça, etc., e não nas outras? Qual o contexto?

Os Papas João Paulo II e Bento XVI que celebraram com grandes festejos, incendiando os corações no amor a Jesus Cristo, os encontros mundiais da juventude sempre consideraram que havia o contexto adequado para falar do aborto, da defesa da vida. Hoje, pelos vistos, nega-se, apesar dos pedidos dos jovens e casais, o que parecia adquirido e vem-se a público lamentar a discordância e acoimá-la de obsessão. Isto sim, é uma novidade. Que se anuncie primeiro Cristo e o Seu Amor não o é, sempre foi assim, e se alguém nos quiser persuadir do contrário teremos de lhe dizer com toda a reverência que anda muito enganado. E lembrar-lhe que muitos, muitíssimos por o fazerem são presos, escorraçados, vilipendiados, agredidos e presos.

Para terminar, convirá atender a que importa muito ter em conta as circunstâncias. Quando Hitler se propunha a invadir a Inglaterra seria totalmente absurdo que os cristãos aliados desembarcassem na Normandia de sorriso rasgado e olhar afectuoso conclamando amigos e irmãos, Cristo ama-vos muito e é o vosso Salvador. Se assim tivesse sido o mundo hoje seria nazi.

Também quando Portugal esteve preste a ser dominado inteiramente pelo comunismo, depois do 25 de Abril, o que nos valeu foi um Cardeal, chamado Karol Woityla (futuro João Paulo II), que em Roma teve uma conversa longa, com o então Bispo de Aveiro e ciente do perigo terrível em que estávamos convenceu o prelado português de que só nos poderíamos salvar se a Igreja saísse à rua liderando o povo. Essas manifestações encabeçadas em quase todas as dioceses por Bispos não saíram propriamente com um rosto amável proclamando animadamente Jesus ama vos. O verdadeiro amor misericordioso exigiu carrancas e urros que contivessem os portadores da ideologia intrinsecamente perversa. À honra e glória de Cristo. Ámen.

S. João Paulo II, rogai por nós.

Janet Smith on Pope's interview - Are We Obsessed?

In First Things 

A few passages from Pope Francis’ famous interview published in America have unsettled some people for many reasons. My reason for being unsettled is that it would not be a complete distortion to say that I have been “obsessed” with the issues of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality for nearly all of my professional life. I prefer the terms “dedicated” or “committed,” of course, but whatever word is appropriate, I have long thought that helping people understand why abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts are not in accord with God’s plans for human happiness is a very effective way of drawing people closer to the Lord and to the Church, and thus, more or less, most of my adult life, I have been evangelizing in this way. 

Enough about me. Let me talk about the legions of pro-lifers who run pregnancy help centers (which outnumber abortion clinics), of those who host pro-life websites and give pro-life talks, of those who try to get pro-life politicians elected, of those who do the hard work of trying to find jobs, housing, and other kinds of support for single mothers, of those who provide healing ministries to women who have had abortions, such as Rachel Weeping. Let me talk about teachers of Natural Family Planning and the Theology of the Body and abstinence educators. Let me talk about those who work for and promote Courage, a compassionate ministry to those who experience same sex attraction and about those who against strangely strong odds make the case against same sex “marriages.” Let me talk about those who use Facebook, blogs, and comments on blogs to try to dialogue with those who reject and even despise Church teaching and those who defend it.

I know these people and most of them radiate the love for Christ and the Church that the Holy Father desires. They sacrifice their time, talent, and energy because they love Christ and those who hate Christ and those who don’t know Christ. Undoubtedly some pro-lifers and some opponents of contraception and some who crusade against the widespread acceptance of homosexuality are angry people ready to condemn others as unredeemable sinners, but I suspect they are few and far between in the US at least. Although I have seen rare postings on the internet, written by putative Christians that are very unchristian, I have not met any such individuals in “real life.”

In fact, I don’t think the Holy Father was speaking about my friends, when he states:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.

My friends definitely talk about these issues “in context,” in fact in many contexts. Again, their reason for boldly and sacrificially and ardently addressing these issues is precisely because they love Christ and the Church and want others to do so. They are trying to save people, to save them from ignorance about Church teaching, to save them from serious sin, to save them from missing out on the great joys of accepting Christ as their savior and the Church as their home. And—praise God—sometimes they succeed. In fact, my own reversion to the Church was greatly facilitated by an anti-Catholic professor who patiently argued with students that truth exists. It pained him that many of his students converted to Catholicism, once they came to accept that truth exists, and even moral truths that require most students to change their behavior radically.

Pope Francis is right that in some contexts proclaiming the Gospel is a powerful aid to conversion to moral goodness. For instance, many of those who do counseling outside of abortion clinics approach the women entering and say: “I am here to help you realize that God loves you and, if you are pregnant, he loves the child you are carrying. He trusts you to be the loving mother your child needs. I am here to help you find whatever you need to help you be that loving mother. There is nothing you have done that God won’t forgive.” That is a powerful and effective approach. It can often be costly to deliver what is needed but I know pro-lifers who definitely go the extra mile.

He also said: “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.” Again, I don’t think this statement refers to my friends since there is nothing “disjointed” about the way they present doctrines nor do they “impose” them “insistently.” Rather, they study hard to learn the deep anthropological truths that John Paul II labored so tirelessly to teach that justify the Church’s teaching. They make the call to conscience that John Paul II makes: man’s dignity resides in his ability to know the truth and to live consciously and freely in accord with it. They call people to live in accord with the natural greatness that God gave them. They do not make threats of damnation or make calls for blind obedience; they lay out the evidence, scientific, sociological, psychological, theological and philosophical. There is no imposing; there is, rather, intelligent instruction and persuasion.

I also began to realize that the Holy Father was not speaking of the same context in which I live and labor when he said:

I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation.

While I understand that preaching the love of Christ is central to Christianity, and while, of course, I am delighted that Pope Francis, as Benedict and John Paul II and a host of popes before him, have preached this relentlessly, I am a bit surprised that Pope Francis thinks an effective way to promote Christianity would be to enthusiastically teach that Christ came to save us. He seems to think that many people are hesitant to embrace Christianity or Catholicism because they believe that they are beyond redemption and that the Church is a judgmental, intolerant institution that won’t accept them. Now, it may be that many people think the Church is judgmental and intolerant, but my impression is that most people do not think they are sinners beyond redemption. In fact, I think most people think they are not sinners and not in need of redemption. They do not think having abortions, using contraception, using pornography, fornicating, masturbating, or engaging in homosexual acts are immoral actions. They think what they are doing is fine and they are fine just as they are.

I am not suggesting that we should be shouting from the rooftops that these are serious sins and that those who commit them knowingly and freely and who don’t repent of them will face an unpleasant eternity, to say the least. That is the truth, of course, but it is not the truth that the crusaders I know, speak. Rather, as I stated, they give reasons for the teachings; rational, persuasive, appealing reasons.

The Holy Father continues his remarks about homilies and says:

Then [after preaching salvation] you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.

Pope Francis finds the homily a proper place to teach moral truths but thinks priests have gotten the order wrong. Where is he hearing these homilies that hammer on moral truths at the expense of preaching the gospel? For some time now I have been trying to help seminarians and priests preach on the difficult moral truths. One reason it is we struggle is that virtually none of us have heard it done! We have heard homilies on abortion—perhaps at most once a year—while homilies on contraception and homosexual acts are so rare as to cause astonishment and generally earn the pastor an influx of hate mail.

Some people have proposed that the Holy Father is speaking out of his experience of a Latin American culture. I don’t know if priests in Latin America incessantly give moralistic homilies without reference to the good news of Christ, but clearly that is the scenario that Pope Francis has in mind. More and more priests in the US are realizing that their parishioners need to hear the truth about morality proclaimed boldly and clearly. The seminarians and I are making every effort to tie moral teachings to the Gospel. It is not hard to do since many passages such as “keep my commandments” lend themselves to a wide range of issues. But displaying the requisite sensitivity is a challenge. I require seminarians always to mention that the fact that so many commit serious sexual sins can be explained by the pernicious influence of our culture, particularly the influence of the entertainment world, but increasingly by the policies of our government as well. I require the seminarians to invite people to confession to experience the liberating and healing power of the sacrament.

In fact, Pope Francis’ own daily homilies that focus on greed, gossip, and laziness, for instance, completely won my heart. I saw that he realized that Catholics need to be reminded daily to let their faith influence every action of our lives—and he regularly invites people to confession. He often preaches about the reality of the devil. I wonder if he knows that American Catholics are as likely to use contraception and view pornography as they are to be greedy and to gossip. The devil has us in his grip there. Mention of those sins, too, need to be a regular part of homilies.

This is not to say that neither my friends nor I have anything to learn from what the Holy Father has said. While I said above that the people I am speaking of “radiate the love of Christ,” I must admit, and not slowly, that such is not always true. We get angry, impatient, dismissive, and self-righteous at times. We are not saints yet, just saints in the making. It is undoubtedly true that some of us love truth more than we love those we serve. That is not a Christian attitude. We need to truly approach each of those we attempt to serve with love for them, with a humble understanding that our approach is not always the best and most compassionate, and with the knowledge that God works patiently with each of us and that we must be patient too.

As Dave Sloan—a friend who is one of the best workers in the vineyard—stated in a post on Facebook: “People do not need to be convinced that they are lost, and they do not need to be convinced that they are wounded. All that is needed is for them to believe that they are known at a deep level and they are loved at a deep level. When they are convinced of these things they are ready enough to reveal their wounds and their sense of being lost. This is messy, and painfully difficult, and it is no surprise that those in the church who have grown comfortable hiding behind a didactic wall are howling that Pope Francis is tearing down that wall.” While I have my quibbles with what the Holy Father said, I think Dave captures the most important element of what he said. Those of us who love didactic certainty need to examine ourselves to strive constantly to ensure that our actions are motivated by love.

A obsessão de S. João Paulo II - por Nuno Serras Pereira

25. 09. 2013

As agências noticiam que para a semana será anunciada a data da canonização - declaração infalível da santidade - de João Paulo II. Este grande Santo não passará a sê-lo, por ser glorificado pela Igreja nesse dia, já o é inteiramente; mas essa celebração solene torna esse reconhecimento público e oficial de modo a permitir o seu culto litúrgico.

Como todos os outros Santos também João Paulo II foi feito participante dos sofrimentos, incompreensões e injúrias de Jesus Cristo. Uma delas, recordo-me bem, e está, com todas as letras no primeiro volume da sua biografia escrita por George Weigel (a pedido do próprio Santo Padre) foi a acusação, não só por parte de descrentes mas também de vários sectores da Igreja, obsessão pelas "questões fracturantes”, para usar este chavão de que a RR parece gostar, particularmente pelo aborto. Uma vez que essa “obsessão” era, como todos podem verificar, uma verdadeira Missão talvez não fosse descabido invocá-lo como S. João Paulo II, o obcecado.

Seja como for, nestes tempos insólitos, peçamos instantemente a sua intercessão. S. João Paulo II, rogai por nós!

Contraception: Sex as a Disease - by Randall Smith

In TCT 

There is no question I am asked about more than Church teaching on contraception. It is the thing that either bemuses or confuses my questioners most about Catholicism:  “Catholics and contraception, it’s just so weird. What’s the deal with you people?”  

The “deal” has to do with the Church having a certain view of how sex fits into a healthy, flourishing human life. The Catholic Church teaches that sexual intercourse is best reserved for a long-term committed relationship open to the procreation of new life. Why?  Because, as I’ve suggested before, sexual intercourse involves the planting of seed in potentially fertile soil. 

If the partners in this act are not ready for the potential consequences of the act – that is, if they’re not prepared to accept the child that is the fruit of their union – then they’re courting some serious unhappiness. Sex, the Church believes, should involve a selfless gift of oneself to another in a relationship of mutual self-giving, love, and concern. 

Now, to be quite honest, this positive vision seems utterly unrealistic to many of my interlocutors: “That sounds nice, but it’s not doable.” So let’s be clear: The Catholic teaching on sex requires not only the virtues of prudence and temperance, above all it calls for hope.

I’ve found over the years that the problem isn’t that people want too much, it’s that they settle for too little. What God and the Church envision for couples is a relationship of mutual love and concern. Too often they settle on so much less. 

Our first task, then, is to convince young women in particular that they’re worth more, and should demand more, than the kind of cheap sexual using of them that society currently encourages. 

The Church’s message to women is basically this: Don’t let anyone convince you to treat your fertility as a kind of disease, as a pathology that needs to be “treated” with drugs or “cured” by surgery. What sort of odd mentality causes us to consider a perfectly healthy function of the human being as something that needs to be dis-abled? We don’t consider cutting off someone’s legs, do we, except in the direst circumstances?  

The “problem” in the case of contraception isn’t some dysfunction. The “problem” is precisely that the human organism is functioning perfectly. If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any need for drugs or surgery! 

When spouses insist on this particular “intervention,” they are saying (with their actions, if not with their words) something like this: “I accept you totally and completely in this sexual act, except for that troublesome fertility thing. So, before we have sex, could you please take care of that? 

To my mind, this is like saying: I accept you totally and completely in this sexual act, except could you first please put on this blond wig for me, or could you first lose thirty pounds?  If you accept a person for who they are, then you accept them. You don’t force them to agree to an operation to “fix” themselves first. This is why John Paul II repeatedly taught that to insist on the disabling of fertility as a precondition for having sex is to destroy not only the procreative dimension of the sexual act, but the unitive dimension as well.

Granted, one needn’t always be intending to have a child (why insist on that?), but what do you want honestly to be able to tell your child?

            (1) “Well, Billy, we did everything humanly, medically possible to prevent your existence, but somehow, you squirmed through anyway. So, when we found you existed, we cried a bit but decided in the end not to terminate you. So here you are!”  Or:

            (2) “Granted, son, we were not intending you when you were conceived, but we were always open to new life. Thus, when we found out about you, we were filled with joy, because we never intended to prevent you.”

The sexual act is not meant to involve fear – specifically, fear of the natural consequences of the act actually occurring, which is a bit like being frightened that the nail might actually go in the wood when you hammer it. The notion of “safe sex” implies that sex itself (apart from the drugs and prophylactics they sell you) is somehow “dangerous,” which is like allowing people to convince you that eating is dangerous – perhaps even deadly – unless you take an expensive drug first. 

We all know that under the current regime of sexual “liberation,” one of the most fear-inducing, toxic substances on the face of the earth is unwanted male sperm. You can’t spill a drop. One drop could kill you or destroy your entire life: “Oh God, my contraception failed last night”?  The sad irony is the conviction that one’s life might be over if a new life has been created. 

It is important to note that a couple can adopt a “conceptive mentality” even when they are not using contraception. If the sexual act is done in fear of a child, then the couple is in the wrong place mentally and spiritually. There are few things more tragic than two human beings doing that most miraculous thing two humans can do with one another – creating a new human life together – and then having one partner say to the other:  “O dear God, no. Anything but that!”  

That tragic reaction is possible whether or not a couple has been using contraception if they’re not open to the natural consequences of the act in which they are engaged: thus the importance of always remaining “open” to God’s creative act, even when not intending to have a child.

Is the Church’s teaching really so foolish, then?  Or are we? Have women in particular allowed themselves to set their standards too low? Aim higher, declares the Church.