Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Bp. Listecki Sets "Young Catholics" Straight

Looks like we could have a two-fisted Bishop coming here.

"It has come to my attention that an organization calling itself “Young Catholics for Choice” has recently entered into collaboration with Family Planning HealthServices of Wausau. Through media advertising, “Young Catholics for Choice” is attempting to convey the message that Catholics can disregard Church teaching regarding contraception, abortion and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like “Young Catholics for Choice” in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called. We pray that they may reconcile their position which is contrary to the Catholic Faith they claim to profess."

That's what's called a monitum.

HT: AmPap


Neo-Con Tastic said...

Invigorating to the say the least.

When I heard the original announcement, I was excited.

Now what I just read, I am REALLY excited.

Anonymous said...

I hope his concern about professing and disseminating views (and practices) in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching applies to child abusers too.

I hope my cynicism isn't justified, because Milwaukee is overdue for a Bishop who's less concerned with legal advice than the theological reality of the Gospel.

bilbannon said...

The bishop then should begin ex communication proceedings against anyone contracepting in his diocese. He will not; because he actually knows dogmatics and knows that abortion is infallibly condemned (EV section 62) and birth control remains under dispute as to whether it is infallible as universal ordinary magisterium or not. Two of the best 20th century theologians dissented from Humanae Vitae..Rahner and Haring...and neither John Paul II nor then Ratzinger attempted to try them on heresy charges. Why not? Because moral theology tomes for years have allowed for studious, prayerful dissent on the disputably infallible. All bishops know it but sometimes they lapse into the above kind of statements that endear the zealous.
But the Bishop above will do nothing to back up his words because he knows that in terms of dogmatics, he is fudging.
Birth control that is clearly abortifacient will never be accepted by the Church. Barrier methods are the question since abortifacient methods could conceivably be the topic of a heresy trial based on the infallibility of the condemnation of abortion.
You are a young Chinese on the mainland and have one child and if you have anymore, you will be fined heavily. A Catholic priest approaches you to convert you to Catholicism. Is he going to be honest and tell you right away that you can only use NFP and if it fails, you will repeatedly be in trouble with the communists leaders for the rest of your life and if it fails twice, they may destroy your family. And this on a topic on which only 8 Popes out of 265 have written a thing. The Didache? Who of you have read the Didache? It is not clear on that topic and it is a low grade essay in general which no one quotes on any other topic.

Dad29 said...

and birth control remains under dispute as to whether it is infallible as universal ordinary magisterium or not

Wrong. Artificial birth control IS infallibly condemned. The only form of 'birth control' which is NOT condemned as mortal sin is self-control.

As to "excomm" for mortal sin? I don't think so. That's never been the practice.

However, advocating mortal sin under color of "being Catholic DOES raise the possibility of ex-comm, as was demonstrated with Rep. Kennedy.

Theological inquiry and study is not the same as advocacy; we ALL know that, Bill Bannon.

Try sophistry someplace else.

bilbannon said...

Dad 29
You write: "Wrong. Artificial birth control IS infallibly condemned."

Prove it. No Pope will say that in those clear words in a high level document even though you and other lesser officed people will (don't cite the CDF til you read Ludwig Ott's intro to Fundamentals of the Catholic FAith just prior to section 9 wherein it declares that CDF statements do not share in infallibility). Germain Grisez and E. Lio and Fr. Ford tried to state that it was infallibly in the ordinary magisterium but that area is never provable when there is substantial dispute and they were debated in Theological Studies and Rome in the persons of the two last Popes took no position as to who was correct and they had to be aware that the best known theologians were debating the issue in that Jesuit journal.

bilbannon said...

ps there is indeed latae sententiae ex communication for doing an abortion...a moral issue... but there is none for contraception though it could be conceivably be broadened to include clearly abortifacient forms of birth control but has not as of yet.

Dad29 said...

Germain Grisez and E. Lio and Fr. Ford tried to state that it was infallibly in the ordinary magisterium but that area is never provable when there is substantial dispute

Maybe you should read HV:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (Para 11)

Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God (para 13)

And, of course:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children (Para 14)

"Absolutely excluded"....."We...declare"--

You may say that it is not condemned, Bill, but that's because your eyes will not see.

bilbannon said...

Dad 29,
You are using an encyclical which no Pope will state is infallible to prove that the topic is infallibly solved. Pope Paul VI knew the precedents for infallible language that were given in both the Immaculate Conception encyclical and in the Assumption encyclical just 14 years prior in that latter case to his writing Humanae Vitae. He avoided that wording....that is why no Pope since has said what you just said above. They knew that he avoided infallibility and they also knew that because Humanae Vitae was introduced to the world press by Monseignor Lambrushini who twice stated at that press conference that Humanae Vitae was not infallible. Easily googled. Pope Paul VI had to have told him to state that because otherwise Pope Paul would have publicly corrected him to the world to make the matter plain. Conservatives imagine that the Monseigor acted on his own but as usual their proof seems to be their suspicions and imaginations. I am concervative scripturally but not in terms of tradition which included a number of mistakes throughout history. It's simple. Pope Paul VI did not correct anything said by the Monsiegnor and thus it is rational to hold that he himself told the Monseignor what to say that Humanae Vitae was not infallible.
Regardless, it avoids the formulaic wording of both the IC and Assumption and it did that for a reason.
When there is dispute in the ordinary magisterium, an ex cathedra encyclical is the very thing that would clear up such a dispute and no Pope has done so on this topic. Why? Because it is way more complicated than your Bishop and Fr. Corapi present it as being and Popes know that. That is why they are not holding constant Bishop synods on the matter and they would do so if 94% of Catholic were robbing banks each week.
You had 29 Popes from 1589 til 1878 who were in formal cooperation with the sterilization system for castrati who sang in the papal churches. Pope Leo XIII disagreed with their choice and in 1878, he issued a directive stopping the practice. But it means that 29 Popes were in cooperation with it; but only about 8 Popes wrote explanations against birth control.
Theologians and Popes know of this problem and the problem of the substructure of this question being entirely different from the main voices in the Fathers who wrote about this area. Popes know that the entire history of it is very complex since they have either read Noonan or essays derivative from him. And one finds many bizarre statements by the saints if one reads the very saints who are quoted on this topic. Here's two:

Jerome in “Against Jovinianus” Book 1 section 20
“The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean.”

“Marriage and Concupiscence”
Chapter 14 “For why is the especial work of parents withdrawn and hidden even from the eyes of their children, except that it is impossible for them to be occupied in laudable procreation without shameful lust?”

This by the way would mean that when St. Anne and St. Joachim had intercourse, they could not avoid lust....rediculous.

bilbannon said...

Here are both of them on their idea that having many children is Jewish not Christian:

Jerome in the same book as above:
Section 48
“Shall a joint-heir of Christ really long for human heirs? And shall he desire children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that Moses and Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God?”

The Good of Marriage section 9 (the Jews needed to propagate…we do not): ” Whence we gather, that, in the first times of the human race, chiefly for the propagation of the People of God, through whom the Prince and Saviour of all people should both be prophesied of, and be born, it was the duty of the Saints to use this good of marriage, not as to be sought for its own sake, but necessary for the sake of something else: but now, whereas, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship, there is on all sides from out all nations an overflowing fullness of spiritual kindred, even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence.”

I think you can see why some theologians questioned how consistent this area was historically.

Dad29 said...

Pope Paul VI knew the precedents for infallible language that were given in both the Immaculate Conception encyclical and in the Assumption encyclical just 14 years prior in that latter case to his writing Humanae Vitae. He avoided that wording...

...as did JPII in issuing his infallible statement regarding female "priests." So?

As to "historical consistency," we could point to TA's vision of 'quickening.' So?

You certainly like thin straws, indeed, to underpin your arguments.

I'll take Bp Listecki's authority against yours, Bill, any day. And I'll take his against Haring, Schillebeeckx, and about 90% of the active Jebbies.

Anonymous said...

Dad29--You certainly like thin straws, indeed, to underpin your arguments.

Such as? Why not respond likewise with specific evidence to refute his claims? You have the time.

I'll take Bp Listecki's authority against yours, Bill, any day.

Which does NOT mean Bill is "wrong" in his interpretations!
This thread shows the political nature of institutions, including the church, and the various arguments offered to support or refute dogma.

Dad29 said...

Which does NOT mean Bill is "wrong" in his interpretations!

Pascal's wager, anony.

bilbannon said...

You are skipping a lot of data I presented which is new to you and that is understandable. But ask yourself why you cannot discuss without the rough guy ad hominem air. Check the tone of your posts and mine. Why the Steven Seagal impression?
What is key is that you indeed should follow Rome except if you have a strong and struggled dissent which is permitted on the not yet clearly infallible in Germain Grisez's "Christian Moral Principles" pages 850 to 854 which post dates Lumen Gentium's "religious submission of mind and will" which was incomplete and your Bishop I'll bet even knows the debate within theological circles on that. But Grisez is the most conversative in the American continent and was personally against birth control in all forms and yet he knew he had to ackowledge what is perennial in moral theology tomes that are usually read only by priests...ie that struggled dissent is allowed on papal positions short of the infallible and indeed led to Pope Paul III in 1537 going against previous Popes of his time on enslaving natives who resisted the gospel in the new lands. He was stirred by the conscience of Los Casos who appealed to him because Pope Nicholas V had legitimized the perpetual slavery of natives who resisted the gospel in Romanus Pontifex 1454/mid 4th paragraph.
Without struggled dissent against a papal position, we would still endorse slavery and burning at the stake which latter was affirmed against Luther in Ex Surge Domine 1520 by Leo X and we'd still condemn interest on a personal loan but our position there is now the one Calvin had in 1545...prior to economies changing at all.
The issue is important not due to American affluent couples who can have more children but have less than the average of years ago anyway....but it is important as to barrier methods for poor Chinese who become Catholic and then could have both their family and marriage destroyed eventually by prison over an issue that has less cache than the death penalty which the last Pope dismissed in reality despite its having more Biblical backing than this issue. Suddenly on the death penalty, tradition and the Bible were thrown out the window and "faithful Catholics" were as quiet as a mouse.

Dad29 said...

What is key is that you indeed should follow Rome except if you have a strong and struggled dissent which is permitted on the not yet clearly infallible

Paul VI's formulation in HV specifically invoked "constant teaching" of the Church regarding artificial birth control.

"Constant teaching", along with 'contary to the Will of God', and "absolutely excluded" are pretty strong statements, Bill.

I don't intend to persuade you that your doubts are in error. The Pope's own words should do that. He doesn't have to use formulae to make it "infallible," and the meaning of his words is clear to all who have ears to hear.

I remind you that 'freedom to question' is not the same as license to DO other than Papal teaching in matters of morality.

And, Anony, if you think I'm being a bit gruff, you're right. But you'll be happy to know that this is my mild-and-milquetoast manner!

Anonymous said...

Confirmation bias, Dad29! Look it up!

Who is this Bill Bannon fellow, and where did he come from???

You postulate that Pascal's Wager is an absolute truism...yet there have been well-versed arguments to the contrary.

Belief in God is based on faith!

bilbannon said...

Dad 29
You are inventing dogmatic theology and making it more simple than it is because you do not want to study it but it is the reason that both Rahner and Haring were not chastised by any Pope for their public dissent on birth control after Humanae Vitae.
Karl Rahner for years was the editor of the Enchiridion Symbolorum which is the book that
classifies the authority levels of various issues in the Church's history. And he dissented from Humanae Vitae...being very aware of the paucity of papal imput on the topic inter alia and very aware that the saints who are quoted on this matter also had very strange ideas noted above that no Pope will quote ever again since they are embarassing. At the time of HV in 1968, Newsweek and Time were quoting the saints in their magazines and thus Catholics were getting from the press the bizarre statements of the saints on sex while from the Pope they were not getting any admission of such problems. Hence that generation noted that the Pope was telling them one thing about tradition but he was not telling them what they were reading in Time and Newsweek nor was he dealing with the fact that such had occured. People know when a leader is covering something up in such a dual source experience. The result was massive rejection of the encyclical and often by the previous users of rythmn who were present at the birth control commission at that time in the persons of the Crowley's and their thousands of letters from people using rythmn and who wanted another way.
The present NFP with its accuracy was not available to about 1975 years worth of Catholics...and yet it, with its scientific implements, is natural and is the be all and end all in this area of life and was known only to several generations whose users probably average less children than Italian families of the early 20th century. Pope John XXIII was the 4th of 14 children...and he called the birth control commission into existence.
Benedict and John Paul II both came from small families.
NFP which is wonderful for the affluent Catholics of the internet (if you have internet access, you are not starving) ...it can spell family distruction for mainland Chinese where I suspect Catholics are ignoring it or they could end up in prison over an issue that 8 Popes out of 265 seemed to have written on....and almost all of those Popes being modern.

Pope Malcolm X said...

Wow. Totally makes me want to start going to mass again. NOT!

Anonymous said...

Some claimed: Artificial birth control IS infallibly condemned.

Unless the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, it is NOT an infallible pronouncement. There hasn't been one for 50 years.

Dad29 said...

Sorry, but your ignorance of infallibility does not constitute an excuse for disobedience.

It's constant teaching--therefore infallible by nature. No paperwork needed.