Daily Archives: July 1, 2007

Well, at least the guy’s trying

This fellow is a convert, talking about why he likes Catholic “in spite of” the teachings on women’s ordination, priestly celibacy and contraception.

He calls the teaching on contraception “theologically confused and confusing.”
How so?

Contraception is evil. Period. What’s confusing about that?
The Bible praises large families. Jesus says to welcome children, and anyone who doesn’t welcome children isn’t fit for the kingdom. Period.
Various Popes, and apologist-prophets like G.K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis have warned that contraception destroys the very foundations of society and psychology, that a society that accepts contraception would also have high rates of divorce, infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, abortion, and psychological problems. Guess what? Since the 1960s, America has developed all of those in abundance. The only confusing thing about that is why people refuse to accept the Truth.

This fellow is certainly confused. He says celibacy should be an option for priests. Actually, even if mandatory celibacy were “lifted,” it would not make “marriage an option for priests”; it would only make “the priesthood an option for married men.’ Someone who is already ordained cannot be married or remarried, just as permanent deacons are not allowed to remarry if their wives die. Back when Latin Rite Catholic priests were allowed to be married, they were not allowed to *remarry*, and they were often required to live in continence. In any case, there were very strict laws regarding fasting from sex.
The formal term is that “ordination is an impediment to marriage,” not vice versa. It’s a matter of fairness to marriage.

Also, consider this: psychologists and doctors aren’t supposed to have relationships with their patients. Teachers and professors are not supposed to have relationships with their students. Such relationships create an inherent disjoint in the relationship.
I’ve heard stories about protestant churches, and how they look askance at unmarried ministers, and how hard it is for single ministers to “date.”

A Catholic priest is automatically a spiritual father to every Catholic layperson, particularly to his congregation. For a Catholic priest to “date” would require him to be in a romantic relationship with a woman who has a de facto patient-counselor relationship with him, and it creates any number of ethical dilemmas.

As for women’s ordination, it is out of the question, and it is not a matter of unfair discrimination. It is one thing to intellectually disagree with a teaching of the Church. It is quite another to say that the Church should apologize for such a teaching.

His public attitude on these teachings makes him a heretic.

When Dietrich von Hildebrand converted to Catholicism, he and his (first) wife were using contraception, and he argued this topic with the priest who was giving him instruction. The priest told him that he would have to abide by *all* the Church’s teachings if he were to become a Catholic.
von Hildebrand said, “Then I say with Augustine, ‘I believe in order to understand.'”

He went on to become one of the greatest defenders of the Church’s teachings on this subject, and Mr. Laurie ought to read his work.

Advertisements

State of Utah Endorses NFP