Damian Thompson reports on the latest Franciscan plane episode. Seems to me it was all going so well...
I think that Damian Thompson is right to suggest we have here another in-flight 'Who am I to judge?' moment. These comments can, I think, be easily reconciled with Catholic teaching but to my eyes it is problematic. So, let's break down the message.
As far as I understand it, the Church's "licit ways" in order to avoid pregnancy are, in fact, singular. There are not 'many' at all. There are 'many' methods of artificial contraception. The only Church approved method is sexual continence or reserved abstinence during fertile known as 'Natural Family Planning' during these fertile periods if there is a just reason for deliberately avoiding conception.
Both these 'ways' point to the same method or 'way' which is sexual abstinence. So how there are 'many ways' I cannot fathom. After having recently met some 'heroic' 'large families' I find this from His Holiness quite bizarre. Having just upheld Humanae Vitae in its prophetic opposition to neo-Malthusianism, His Holiness gives the message that lots of children is a bad thing, in circumstances, and the media, as we know, take away from these interviews what they want to take away. There's no way that anyone can take away from that interview that lots of children = good. Nor is there any comment regarding the life to come.
I am sure His Holiness did not mean this but there is a particularly clumsy sentence here...
If she is pregnant with an eighth child, what is she meant to do in order to avoid any risk to her life? Abort the child? She cannot turn back time and not be pregnant or practise abstinence retrospectively. So why use that example?
Nevertheless, today's headline is this...
'Francis said Pope Paul VI, whose 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae outlined the contraceptive ban, was warning against a "Neo-Malthusianism," a reference to a theories that suggested in the 1960s and ’70s that exponential global population growth would lead to an irreversible world food crisis.
Citing the low rates of birth specifically in Italy and Spain, Francis said such Neo-Malthusianism "seeks to control humanity."
At the same time, however, Francis made a statement that seems without precedent for a pope, suggesting that parents may have a responsibility to limit the number of their children, saying: "This does not signify that the Christian must make children in series."
Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via Cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: "Does she want to leave the seven orphans?"
"This is to tempt God," he said, adding later: "That is an irresponsibility." Catholics, the pope said, should speak of "responsible parenthood."
"How do we do this?" Francis asked. "With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood."
"God gives you methods to be responsible," he continued. "Some think that -- excuse the word -- that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No."
"This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors," Francis said. Using the term for a practice that follows church law, he continued: "I know so many, many licit ways that have helped this."
Francis was speaking about birth control in response to a question from a Filipino journalist. Use of contraception in the Philippines is a contentious issue, as the Philippine government only recently approved contraceptive access against forceful opposition from Catholic bishops.
The pope's responses regarding birth control and ideological colonization were part of a wide-ranging conference that touched on a number of other subjects, including: Corruption in church structures, the place of women in church leadership, and global mistreatment of the poor that the pontiff said could be likened to a new form of "state-sponsored terrorism."'
I think that Damian Thompson is right to suggest we have here another in-flight 'Who am I to judge?' moment. These comments can, I think, be easily reconciled with Catholic teaching but to my eyes it is problematic. So, let's break down the message.
Through neo-Malthusianism contraception is used to manage populations by the elite. (Message: Contraception = bad.)
This does not mean that Catholics must have lots of children - 'children in series.' (Message: Lots of children = bad)
There are examples when another child could be risk for a woman. (Message: Lots of children = bad)
This is to tempt God, (Message: It can even be a sin to have lots of children. Lots of children = bad)
Priests can help you to be more responsible parents. (Message: Priests can help. Lots of children = bad)
Some think that -- excuse the word -- that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. (Message: Lots of children = bad)
I know so many, many licit ways that have helped this. (Message: There are many 'licit' ways not to have children. Lots of children = bad).
As far as I understand it, the Church's "licit ways" in order to avoid pregnancy are, in fact, singular. There are not 'many' at all. There are 'many' methods of artificial contraception. The only Church approved method is sexual continence or reserved abstinence during fertile known as 'Natural Family Planning' during these fertile periods if there is a just reason for deliberately avoiding conception.
Both these 'ways' point to the same method or 'way' which is sexual abstinence. So how there are 'many ways' I cannot fathom. After having recently met some 'heroic' 'large families' I find this from His Holiness quite bizarre. Having just upheld Humanae Vitae in its prophetic opposition to neo-Malthusianism, His Holiness gives the message that lots of children is a bad thing, in circumstances, and the media, as we know, take away from these interviews what they want to take away. There's no way that anyone can take away from that interview that lots of children = good. Nor is there any comment regarding the life to come.
I am sure His Holiness did not mean this but there is a particularly clumsy sentence here...
Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via Cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: "Does she want to leave the seven orphans?"
If she is pregnant with an eighth child, what is she meant to do in order to avoid any risk to her life? Abort the child? She cannot turn back time and not be pregnant or practise abstinence retrospectively. So why use that example?
Nevertheless, today's headline is this...
Comments
Post a Comment