Our bishops seem to have cell phones that don't reach the laity, but work quite well reaching the Vatican. There is no touch tone for the Holy Spirit--especially when it comes to sex and adult spirituality.Bishops aim for a pastoral way to say 'No'
09:21 AM By Erin Siegal, REUTERS
09:21 AM By Erin Siegal, REUTERS
No. No. No.
The nation's Catholic bishops won't say it so baldly, of course. But they're close to it in the draft of "pastoral" letter leaked to Catholic media. (They didn't say NO. They called cohabitation, contraception, gay sex, and divorce intrinsic evils. That's maybe a little stronger than NO.)
In their upcoming meeting next month, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is set to address how they guide the faithful on critical points, on marriage ("Life and Love in the Divine Plan"), childbirth ("Life-giving Love in an Age of Technology") and end-of-life decisions (revising the bishops ethical directives to Catholic Health Care Services).
These are all areas where Catholics, statistically, have been behaving pretty much like non-Catholics. The Church wants to root their actions and choices in the life-sustaining sacraments but many believers want to make up their own moral minds instead.
Hence, there are gay Catholics, co-habiting Catholics, divorcing Catholics, Catholics using artificial contraception for avoid pregnancy or high tech assistance such as IVF to fight infertility, and there are Catholics writing their end of life medical directives to shut off artificial nutrition and hydration when they may never be conscious again.
Can the bishops reel them in?
The National Catholic Reporter, looking at a leaked draft of the pastoral letter on marriage says in an editorial that it's so heavy-handed and crudely done -- full of "sweeping denunciations" and lacking in "pastoral solicitude" that the bishops should "scrap the entire text ... and start fresh." (I honestly tried to read the whole thing, but it's not just heavy handed, it's mostly cut and paste from the writings of JPII and Benedict. It's ponderously repetitive and boring and at time insulting.)
Their story on the draft version of the letter (to be amended by bishops at the annual fall meeting in Baltimore) says it repeats that cohabitation and contraception are "intrinsically evil" challenges to "the very meaning and purposes of marriage." The proper nature of marriage is "ordered to the procreation and education of offspring." It is in offspring, write the bishops, that married love "finds its crowning glory."
Same-sex marriage, NCR quotes the draft:
... Redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society. (But hey, gays are worthy of our respect and deserve to be treated with dignity, even though the idea of celebrating gay love harms the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society.)
... Redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society. (But hey, gays are worthy of our respect and deserve to be treated with dignity, even though the idea of celebrating gay love harms the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society.)
In the editorial, NCR notes:
... The draft does speak of the dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, but it does not lead with this insight." Nor did it offer any creative counter approaches to offering health care or other crucial benefits to people who share a home with someone not their legal spouse -- whether it's a same-sex lover or elderly auntie.
... The draft does speak of the dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, but it does not lead with this insight." Nor did it offer any creative counter approaches to offering health care or other crucial benefits to people who share a home with someone not their legal spouse -- whether it's a same-sex lover or elderly auntie.
****************************************************
I really did try to make it through the whole pastoral draft, but I admit, it was beyond my patience and tolerance level. In an effort to save readers some time, I'll paraphrase the entire draft.
Everything is intrinsically evil when it comes to sex, unless sex is discretely engaged in for the purposes of procreation in a sacramental marriage.
That about sums up the entire message. No need to read the fifty or so pages which expand this basic concept--unless you want to subject yourself to excessive verbiage on the intrinsic evils of not understanding this basic concept.
The pastoral begins in the garden with Adam and Eve where we are informed that Eve is made to be Adam's help meet and they are to be fruitful and multiply, and yes indeed they are made equally in God's image with COMPLIMENTARY roles. This leads directly to the first of numerous cut and paste statements from one or the other of our last two popes. Oh yea, and the often stated but completely erroneous idea that the Church has always recognized marriage as between one man and woman for ever and ever amen--except for when it hasn't, which was more or less it's first 1100 years, which for some reason isn't mentioned.
By the time I quit reading this pastoral it had more or less condemned 97% of American Catholics to hell if they don't mend their 'intrinsically evil' ways. Which leaves about 3% of American Catholics saved and pastorally directed. A reasonable person might wonder what a Church actually has to offer when it's leadership wipes out 97% of it's membership in one pastoral letter.
A reasonable person might wonder if this statistical fact might just indicate that said leadership is completely out of touch with the real lived experience of their flock. Or maybe this is just an attempt to rally the true believing base, ala Rush Limbaugh. Judging from the comments on the NCR itself, it is not rallying the 97% it condemns to potential hell.
I personally agree with the NCR editorial board that the USCCB should just let this one quietly die, exactly as they did their 'pastoral' letter on women. At least with the pastoral letter on women they actually consulted women. Some people feel the disconnect this consultation presented between the teaching on women and women's real experiences of the teaching is why that letter was dropped. Too much truth I guess.
This current pastoral letter most certainly didn't consult anyone but JPII and Benedict. In my book, that's kind of a definition of a cult when only one or two voices are consulted. This letter actually reads like most Opus Dei letters which constantly reference the thoughts of St. Escriva. I imagine a lot of members of Opus Dei are in that 3% and so they will be quite supportive of this letter. I wonder how many of them secretly wonder where God is when they sit at the kitchen table and try to balance the bills.
In this pastoral letter God is much more concerned with creating children than providing for them. In fact I don't believe this pastoral letter even deals with any of the 'providing for" aspects of creating the children we are to 'raise and educate' as our primary marital duty. Kind of like the abortion debate. There's nary a word about providing the post birth care those potential humans will require.
I guess we are to trust in the providence of a God who lately has seemed quite indifferent to providing post birth care. Or maybe He is trying to provide--health care reform comes to mind--but His erstwhile leaders are too busy accepting provision for themselves from the very folks who aren't interested in bringing God's providence to fruition for the rest of us. Just a thought.
In any event, save yourself some serious frustration. Don't attempt to read the whole thing. The NCR article and editorial has it about right. This letter is intended to be read by the Vatican for a pat on the back and career advancement. It's not a useful or meaningful communication for American laity.
