Happy 40th Birthday to Humanae Vitae

Forty years ago yesterday, Paul VI released the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s prohibition against artificial contraception. Click on the link above to read the document, and you will see that Paul VI’s points are very relevant today. At the time (and even today) it caused a furor and led to many in the Church being in open dissent to Church Teaching.

I often wonder why using artificial contraception is considered to be a sign of a person’s “liberation.” You would think that with all this “green” trendiness these days, people would discover Natural Family Planning, since artificial contraception is a pharmaceutical that not only harms the environment, but also artificially alters a woman’s body. But critically examining one’s basic approach to desire requires a lot more effort and sacrifice than subscribing to the green channel or some other surface action, so I am not sure if NFP will necessarily catch on with the “trendy” green crowd, although it does seem that all sorts of Christians are re-evaluating their views on contraception.

While Paul VI was often indecisive - so much so that it is rumored that Pope John XXIII called him the “Hamlet Pope” - he stood firm in a real way with this encyclical.

Scripture and Tradition: On the Same Team!

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 80).

When I read the Church Fathers, I was surprised to see the value they placed on Tradition. They, of course, valued Scripture, but they did not pit it against Tradition, whether by Tradition we mean a correct interpretation of Scripture, or important information passed down orally that wasn’t included in the Bible. Over time, I began to realize how much this really makes sense. Let me pose a few questions to you that explain why you pretty much have to have an authoritative (or some type of) Tradition if you have the Scriptures.

- In the ancient world, how could a written text have been the only authority if very few churches, let alone, persons, could afford a copy of the complete Scriptures?

- In the ancient world, how could a written text have been the only authority when the vast majority of Christians, lay and ordained, couldn’t read?

- In the ancient world, how could a written text have been the only authority if what constitutes the written authority was not clearly defined (since it took awhile for all churches to agree on what books constituted Scripture)?

- Related to the above question, how could a written text be authoritative outside of a connection to Tradition, if Tradition itself determined which books made up the authoritative text?

- In the Apostolic age, how could a written text have been the only authority if the text was not even written yet?

- In the early Church, how could the written text be authoritatively interpreted properly outside of Tradition if many groups were misreading the texts even as early as the time of Saint Paul?

My basic point in these questions is that tradition is unavoidable, but it was especially unavoidable in the ancient world. Based on the questions I asked above, it is clear that the Church would not have survived if it were not for Tradition, and I believe that Tradition is one way in which Christ kept his promise that the gates of Hades would not overcome the Church. I seriously think a dissertation-worthy topic would be to compare the rise of sola scriptura movements to the development of the printing press.

Any group, religious or otherwise, cannot function without some sort of tradition, or a living, guiding authority. In fact, the gospel never would have been spread without oral tradition, without the message of Christ, because the first book of the New Testament wasn’t even written until 20 years or so after the resurrection of Jesus. Even as early as the New Testament Paul and others are writing to correct churches against various errors. Many of these heretics are misreading the Scriptures of the time (the Old Testament), and misinterpreting the message of Jesus. Paul and others correct these errors, but are we to assume that these errors, and the right of Christian leaders to correct these errors, stopped after 100 AD? To me, this doesn’t make much sense, that somehow at 100 AD the authority of Christian leaders ended. I believe this is where the Church, the body of Christ, comes in. Of course, the next question then becomes, what tradition is one going to align with, and which Church has the authority in our age of denominationalism to correct errors, and frankly, I don’t have time to get into this today, but since I became Catholic in 2004, you probably know what I believe!

Clinton, Kennedy, and NARAL Took the High Road…

But Obama did not. What issue am I talking about? The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have prevented the killing of an infant born alive, namely those who survived a botched late-term abortion. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and even NARAL, did not oppose the act, but Obama opposed it. Anybody care to explain why he couldn’t support this act, which seems to me even a pro-choice individual could easily support? Has he explained his reasons? I am not likely to vote for Obama in the fall, but I think faithful Catholics who are even considering voting for him deserve an explanation for this.

I know, I know, people say we Catholics focus on abortion too much. But let me tell you, having 2 nieces, and contemplating children of my own, that we would tolerate, and even justify, killing an infant born alive says a whole lot about our level of civilization. We might be able to send someone to the moon, but if we practice things like this, its as if we are still Cro-Magnons with a little innovation thrown in (of course, even Cro-Magnons may not have even contemplated such a thing).

Thanks for Irenaeus for pointing this out.

Yes, We Have Youth!

Yes, Virginia, we have youth in the Catholic Church…plenty of young, vibrant, folks, and they were at World Youth Day in Australia. Now, I am certainly not implying older people are bad. I am thankful the Catholic Church has a great mix of ages, races, classes, educational levels, and so forth. This is true diversity, not the buzzwordy type “diversity” I occasionally encounter. But, youth are important. What signals that an organization has a future? Youth. Sure, we can point out the drawbacks of large Catholic youth gatherings, but at least we are seeing thousands of faithful, young Catholic gathered together, worshiping together.

I can tell you from experience the importance of having people your age in a church, and as Jennifer and I contemplate starting a family, encountering other people at our stage of life is very encouraging. Wrong or right, after looking at a parish’s stated beliefs, I judge the vibrancy of a parish I visit based on two criteria: the number of families with young children, and the extent of the youth program. Often solid belief and these two go hand-and-hand, but not always.

Once again, I am glad we have youth. I say this as someone who turned 30 this year and doesn’t always understand the “younger generation,” but we need them in the Church!

More Women “Ordained”

Why this stuff makes the news is beyond me. It’s kind of like saying “man appointed ambassador to England by local carpenter.” At least in the Boston Globe article, they put the word “ordain” in parentheses. The media at least understands what these women do not: they may be something, but they aren’t Catholic priests, no matter what they claim. Also, judging by the photos on their website, most if not all, will be retiring shortly, if they’re not already receiving pensions. Yes, they are an aging, largely irrelevant movement which gets disproportionate media coverage. They speak of being “prophetic” but Rome, like Constantinople is not going to change based on activism and most likely won’t change at all. There’s a perfectly nice, but declining liberal communion in England that will not only let these women be pastors, but also “bishops.” If they hurry they can even participate in two hour diversity workshops on the CofE dime.

News from Around the Net

- Your photos on myspace or facebook can get you in trouble, that is, if you are doing stupid things, like partying down like all is well, after injuring or killing someone in a drunk-driving accident. So basically, the Internet, despite all its weaknesses, once again is good at exposing the truth.

- The Vatican thinks that the innovations of Anglicanism, at least some parts of the Anglican Communion, will hinder ecumenical relations. The Vatican even sent a letter to the Lambeth Conference saying as such. While open to welcoming Anglican defectors, the pope doesn’t want to damage ecumenical relations with the Anglican Communion too badly, although I can’t help but think the Anglican Communion makes a poor ecumenical partner, since Anglicans themselves often claim there are no core beliefs that make up Anglicanism. Of course, I want to remind everyone that the defecting goes both ways: a good many Episcopalians (including priests) are former Catholics.

-McCain supports vouchers, but Obama does not. I think both sides may over-react a little regarding vouchers. They will not destroy public education as some liberals claim, nor will they solve all of our educational problems, as some conservatives claim, but you would think that Obama would support giving people, especially poor people a choice in education, since some of the worst schools are in black neighborhoods. Blacks support educational choice, because they often suffer the worst from a lack of choice. Throwing money at education and backing the NEA on every point, hasn’t resulted in better education for our youth. Plus, Catholic schools tend to do just as well (if not better) spending less money per student (thanks to Irenaeus for bringing this to our attention). By the way, Catholic Social Teaching strongly favors vouchers.

Lambeth Conference 1998 to 2008…What Changed?

The Anglican Communion is currently in the middle of its worldwide gathering of bishops, the Lambeth Conference. Last gathering, in 1998, bishops from all over the world attended, but for this gathering, some conservative Anglicans have decided to stay home, and many attended a competing conference in Jerusalem recently, called GAFCON.

If you ask me, the current Lambeth Conference is pointless. Of course, nobody asked me! Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams wants to avoid mention of any of the recent controversies, and instead focus on getting along. The problem is that serious, major, issues are currently dividing Anglicanism, and a few 2-hour discussions here and there, coupled with pretending the problem doesn’t exist, aren’t likely to accomplish much. What diocese in its right mind would send its bishop all the way to England simply to exchange pleasantries, while ignoring the elephant in the room? Maybe it is just my style, but I think the Lambeth Conference is a perfect time to address some of these issues, rather than skirt them (it shows that the leadership of the Anglican Communion really doesn’t want to address them). Somebody will address the issues, whether it is Peter Akinola, or the Pope or Ecumenical Patriarch, because traditional Anglicans are looking for answers and a refuge from the current mess. Ignoring it is only going to keep the blissfully ignorant happy, not activists on either side.

So why are so many bishops excusing themselves now, and not in 1998? Certainly liberalism in the Episcopal church isn’t new, is it? What changed from 1998 to 2008? Besides many progressives in the Anglican church further pushing the envelope, I think the internet is to “blame.” It has developed into a powerful means of communication. I don’t recall knowing about blogs in 1998; Now I read many, and write for two. The internet allows for very open communication. A favorite tactic of church progressives is to use traditional language, traditional symbols, and even give lip service to traditional theology, yet mean something entirely different. I think it is not only dishonest, but requires a lot of intelletual acrobatics. In the past, progressives could count on essentially keeping your average Episcopalian in the dark about happenings in the national church, and about the beliefs of the Episcopal church. The internet has changed all of this. Damage control is impossible. A bishop can refer to Jesus’ resurrection in a homily, and church members can go online and find out what the bishop means by this, whether he intends a bodily resurrection or an abiding memory in the minds of his followers. The internet has allowed opponents a voice. They may be silenced in seminaries, and in diocesan conventions, but blogs (which may at times go too far) cannot be silenced easily. Lambeth 2008 may be the last Lambeth conference ever, who knows, or it could be the last one that had bishops from all over the world.

Note: I am moving into a new house, so I haven’t had time to provide links to info in this post. Stand Firm and Titus One Nine seem to be following Lambeth rather closely.

Conservatives, Catholics, and Food

Thanksgiving Table by David Bennett

Lately, I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about the “crunchy con” movement. Lutherpunk’s blogging started it and then American Conservative Magazine published a great series of articles grouped under their cover story of “Eating Right: the Case for Culinary Conservatism.” Blogger and author Rod Dreher is an important part of the piece and I thought I’d post his “crunchy con” manifesto here:

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

I think his manifesto–as well as promoting local food production, healthy and organic options, and humane treatment of animals– is a very conservative and even Catholic option, especially the emphasis on subsidiarity (even though the manifesto doesn’t use that word), the family, local community, and especially the “Permanent Things” as opposed to materialism. Here are some good articles that make a conservative case for what have traditionally been viewed as the realm of hippie liberals:

Food for Thought by John Shwenkler
Table Talk by Rod Dreher and Michael Pollan
Burning Dinner by Timothy Carney (important piece about ethanol)
A Righter Shade of Green by Roger Scruton
Fear Factories (The Case for Compassionate Conservatism for Animals) by Matthew Scully

The Spam Filter Strikes Again!

I noticed a few past comments were caught in the spam filter, and I forget to check it regularly. We don’t usually censor comments (we don’t censor comments because of ideas, although very vulgar ones may be edited), so please know that if your comment doesn’t get posted, or doesn’t say it is awaiting moderation, it may mean you got stuck in the spam filter.

First the Liturgy, Now the Highway

It seems that forcing gender neutral language on the Church isn’t enough these days. Now the feminists in Atlanta are demanding that those sexist “men at work” highway signs be changed. I’d like to make two basic points. 1) Having lived in Atlanta, I’m not surprised to see the politically correct crowd get its way. I’m so grateful to be out of that town for a multitude of reasons. 2) Who really cares? Only the professional activists and/or academics, I’d assume. I see no evidence that a woman working on the crew complained, only the editor of a women’s magazine. Men, man, mankind, etc. can be used to be inclusive of women. If only people would study up on their English.

East-West Unity: Getting Serious

John Chrysostom Icon

Jonathan and I presented at a meeting of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom, Youngstown-Warren Chapter, a a few days ago. The Society is devoted to greater unity between Catholics and Orthodox. We presented on the topic of internet ecumenism, and the possibilities and drawbacks involved.

The Society of Saint John Chrysostom does a lot of great things, and at the meeting were representatives from both the Catholic (Eastern and Latin Rite) and Orthodox side. Fr. Hopko, an Orthodox priest active online, regularly attends these meetings, but unfortunately was not present at this meeting. I recommend visiting the Society’s site, and seeing if there are ways to get involved in your area.

I have always been committed to East-West unity, which began when I studied the Church Fathers as an evangelical. I think part of my interest in East-West unity is a result of studying Eastern and Western Fathers at the same time. However, it is easy to get complacent, and not regularly consider the importance of unity among the Apostolic Churches. I think that we are witnessing a real opportunity for greater unity all around us. One main reason is that many of our traditional ecumenical partners are moving farther and farther away from historical Christianity. Orthodox and Catholics are going to find that as society and mainline Protestantism moves farther and farther away from the faith and morality of classical Christianity, working together just makes sense. In the near future, in even western countries like Canada, we may find ourselves standing together against governments trying to stop us from even expressing Catholic and Orthodox views on controversial moral issues. We just have to get past some of our old hostilities really. Of course it is more complicated that this, but I think there is hope, and this is something we should always work for and pray for.

Thompson: Church of England Bishop Will Lead Anglicans to Rome

According to Damian Thompson, Anglican Bishop Andrew Burnham will lead Anglo-Catholics to the Catholic Church. Burnham, like many other Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, is upset that the Church of England recently approved of women bishops. Whether Burnham and others will actually leave has yet to be seen, but it looks like some Anglo-Catholics are serious this time (as opposed to just threatening). From the article:

Bishop Burnham hopes that Rome will offer special arrangements whereby former Anglicans can stay worshipping in parishes under the guidance of a Catholic bishop. Most of these parishes already use the Roman liturgy, but there may be provision for Anglican prayers if churches request it.

Anglican priests who are already married will not be barred from ordination as priests, though Bishop Burnham would not be able to continue in episcopal orders, as he is married and there is an absolute bar on married bishops in the Roman and Orthodox Churches.

In his statement, Bishop Burnham explains why he is rejecting the code of practice offered to traditionalists by the General Synod last night. “How could we trust a code of practice to deliver a workable ecclesiology if every suggestion we have made for our inclusion has been turned down flat?” he asks.

“How could we trust a code of practice when those who are offering it include those who have done most to undermine and seek to revoke the code of practice in force for these last 14 years? …

“What we must humbly ask for now is for magnanimous gestures from our Catholic friends, especially from the Holy Father, who well understands our longing for unity, and from the hierarchy of England and Wales. Most of all we ask for ways that allow us to bring our folk with us.”

Note that Bishop Burnham feels excluded by the Church of England over this issue. I have said it before, and I believe it to be true: often “inclusion” only goes as far as including those with whom you happen to agree. “Inclusion” and “diversity” are two buzzwords I rarely utter because I heard them hypocritically bandied about in grad school so often, usually by those who wanted the Church to be anything but inclusive or diverse. The Church of England leadership doesn’t really want to accommodate the backward sorts that disapprove of women priests, therefore they will provide no shelter for them, but issue a heartfelt, “we’re deeply grieved you’re deeply grieved” type statement later.

I wonder what the Catholic Church has in mind here. If this goes well, and the Church is generous, maybe we’ll see a greater expansion of the Anglican Use here in the U.S.!

On a related note, Jonathan and I will be presenting tonight at a gathering of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom, Youngstown-Warren Chapter, on internet ecumenism.

Church of England Votes to Accept Women Bishops

The C of E says women bishops are permissible. It makes sense. If you can have women priests (which the Church of England has had since the 1990s), then why not women bishops? Is this really a shocker?

Right now the rumors are flying about a mass exodus to Rome of disaffected Anglo-Catholic C of E clergy. We’ll see how that shapes up, but I think classical Anglo-Catholics in England might well have experienced the last straw.

This comment on Stand Firm seems to suggest something formal may be in the works (of course this is just speculation):

#4- The “defections” as you called them have already started, unless my incoming email deceives me. All I can say is “wait for it.” News will come soon enough from the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger.  I think he will wait until after Lambeth, but in light of today’s travesty, it may come sooner.  The CoE is now where TEC was a dozen or so years ago.  While I dearly love my friends over there who are convinced that their church is different than ours, I fear that they are only a few years away from their own VGR and KJS.  And, like us, they have brought this upon themselves.

A Day of Rest (from Driving)

A 13 year old Catholic girl from California has designed a website promoting a day of rest from driving on the feast of St. Francis. She asks people to pledge not to drive in order to help the environment and encourage them to spend time with family and friends. Whatever you may think of the whole global warming thing, this sounds like a good idea, if anything to conserve fuel and promote responsible consumption.

Visit A Day of Rest

Reflections On Blogging

With Anglican matters on my mind (see last post), Fr. Jake Stops the World, a liberal Episcopal blog, has just closed up. Fr. Jake (actually Fr. Terry Martin) has decided to step down in part because the toxic rhetoric of the Anglican wars has had a negative impact on his spiritual life. I didn’t visit his blog that often, but I admit when I wanted to see what the far left in the Episcopal church was up to, and remind myself why the left is no more “inclusive” than the right, I would visit Fr. Jake’s blog to read some of the comments there. In fairness, Fr. Martin himself tended to keep to higher standards of discourse than his often vitriolic commenters. Some of the commenters were especially critical of the Catholic Church, which has stood firm against the type of sexual innovations that are now widely accepted in the Episcopal church.

This got me thinking about blogging and internet discussion in general. I agree with Fr. Martin about how the internet and internet discussions can become toxic, especially Anglican and general religious discussions. I believe strongly in free expression over the internet, and in 2003 and 2004 when the Anglican Communion was starting to break apart it was Anglican blogs, left and right, that kept me informed of what was going on (despite efforts of some Episcopal leaders who would have preferred their actions have stayed under the radar). Nonetheless, when you have two groups (or even more) battling for the soul of their denomination, both fully convinced they are right, a long and difficult battle is bound to happen. Personally, as a confessed conservative on sexual issues, I was tired of being outraged all the time as an Episcopalian, and I knew that if I stayed within the fray myself, I was just going to be constantly frustrated. However…I also know the importance of staying and fighting, and shining light on what is happening, so I also admire the bloggers who stand up for what they believe. Even as a Catholic, I know that I have to keep the balance between being involved in pointless and toxic debates, and being a constructive and Christlike blogger, helping to inform and educate internet readers.

I often have wondered if the time a lot of us spend online couldn’t be spent more fruitfully elsewhere. I especially felt this way around 2000 when I discovered internet forums and chats. Many of the chats I observed (and participated in) were just Christians slinging proof-texts at one another, with many getting angry, and people rarely changing their minds. I eventually scaled back my time on these types of chats, and instead decided to only chat with those who are friendly and looking for some type of fellowship along with the discussion. This doesn’t mean I am only going to engage those who agree with me, but I just don’t have time to become embroiled in heated debates that leave everybody angry, and actually hinder what really matters: my relationship with Christ. Of course, I am only speaking for myself. Some people might grow spiritually through heated debates, but I admit that I do not. From my time online, I have never seen someone’s heart and mind opened through a heated, sarcastic, debate, but I have seen people open up after calm, loving, and firm discussion. Notice I mentioned “firm,” because I am not implying we should get together, hold hands, sing camp songs and pretend we don’t disagree with others; what I am saying is that we should hold our discussions to a charitable and mature level of discourse.

Despite these possible weaknesses of online discussion, I think the internet serves a very important purpose, even if sometimes it can bring out the worst in us. The internet is the new way to communicate. It is the way a lot of people (especially young people) learn and network. Whenever I want information, I go online first. I pay all my bills online, and order most of my books, vitamins, and other things online. The Church needs people to embrace this new media, and to use it effectively, because it is going to advance in importance whether the Church embraces it or not.

So I guess my perspective on blogging (and other internet activity, like our informational site ChurchYear.Net) is that it is a legitimate calling, but one that must not become detached from reality as a blogger. If we wouldn’t be sarcastic and overbearing with someone in real life, we shouldn’t do it online. If we would be loving to someone in real life when discussing our faith, we should be loving online. If we are accurate about our faith in person, we should not sugar-coat online. Our online personas should match who we are in reality, or, who we should become in reality in Christ.