Friday, March 23, 2007

John Mallon on Contraception

I finally got around to reading the email from John Mallon that many other Catholic bloggers have already blogged about when they received it. Wow! What an awesome article, please read it if you have a chance (whether you're Catholic or not) and pass it along. Contraception, the Love Killer by John Mallon

Here is the video, absolutely unbelievable. You can just see the arrogance on Hannity's face the entire time. Clearly displaying a spirit contrary to that which he received at communion. And Hannity is a professional speaker which amounts to his low class tactics here being nothing less than bullying.

I hope this is a good wake up call for the Church. And this, from a so-called conservative! Keep HLI and the entire Church in your prayers.

8 comments:

bilbannon said...

I find that NFP people on the net...those of the new more accurate form of natural planning forget the history of this issue. The first sincere dissenters...not brash dissenters like Hannity seems to be....were from the old rythmn method and they wrote thousands of letters to the Crowley's on the Birth Control Commission asking for change in the Church's position. Pat Crowley has stated that those letters influenced 90% of the theologians on the Commission. The majority report then expressed
their reasons finally for seeking change in Rome's position but Pope Paul VI listened instead to the minority and to Karol Wotyla as he wrote Paul VI privately from Poland. Appointed to the Commission, he did not show up but conducted his own study group in Poland. I have no where seen in print any mention that he took the trouble to read the letters that were sent from the people in the US from the Family Life Movement who were obedient to Rome but were seeking change. Later Pope John Paul II was to refer to HV as prophetic....but his assistant notes that many of his concepts were repressented therein. If that's humility, then my dictionary needs revising. Mention is made to the constant tradition of the Church but I would challenge you to find more than ten Popes who have ever said a thing on this area of life so as to speak from the heart. What happened really was throughout the centuries which didn't even have the science for natural methods is that each Pope inherited the decretals and simply enforced the inherited decretals on that issue as well as on light torture during some centuries. And this is called constant tradition. Constant tradition should mean heart felt examination and fostering of an issue and that did not happen at all. The decretals were based on fragments from different saints....inter alia two Fathers who were both ex fornicators being prominent......and the decretals were simply inherited and enforced like hundreds of decretals were.
In 1975 in Theological Studies, Bernard Haring wrote that the natural methods could result in non implantations also unless adherents were careful to avoid such intercourse around the ovulation time that would result in a aged sperm meeting a fresh ovum and vice versa. In 2006 Luc Bovens from the UK stated the same findings in the Journal of Medical Ethics. That area seems unsettled when one reads the NY Times account of the 2006 element. Suffice it to say that this issue does not fall under the Canon Law's definition of heresy nor of infallibility...see canon 749-3 and its demand that infallibility be "manifestly evident" as to issues that can be considered infallible which the ordinary magisterium is rarely now....John Paul e.g. ignored centuries of the ordianry magisterium on the death penalty and on husband headship. This issue of birth control falls under Lumen Gentium 25's "religious submission of mind and will" in non infallible areas that have been repeated by the Pope in higher documents. LG 25's parameters though are susceptible not to brash disregard but to sincere dissent which we know from an incident at the Council in which three Bishops sought expansion in the LG 25 statement to include sincere dissent and were not contradicted by the Theological Commission but were simply advised that in such cases, they could consult the "manuals" which require dissent to be prayerful, studious, and counseled.
The current 95% dissent rate on the issue may contain only a fraction of that number as really qualifying in the sincere realm...hence the divorce rates....while others take the 95% dissent rate as the Church not receiving the teaching by the sensus fidelium....that however could be overcome by an infallible document; but an ex cathedra document wwould require honest months of research by a Pope who would have to consider inter alia whether hundreds of popes merely inheriting decretals based on fragments from celibates some of whom where ex fornicators...is really constant tradition. And he'd have to take another look at Onan and explain how Onan's death could possibly be for a sex act when Judah and Tamar sin sexually and more grievously in the very same story and go unpunished...yea...are blessed with a baby who leads to the Messiah which was the real sin of Onan: he wanted no children ever and as long as he remained alive, Onan blocked God's will that the Messiah come from the house of Judah which was only 4 men. With Onan dead, God could allow for whether Shelah would do his duty. he did not so that a sin was permitted in the Providential sense between Judah and Tamar which produced Christ's heir. Augustine with his residue's of sexual guilt arrived at the passage and never saw the Messiah theme at all....and his narrow view was placed within Casti Cannubii.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

If only you had been alive so that the Church fathers & popes could have sought your counsel before writing so recklessly!

bill bannon said...

Name the total number of Popes who have written on this issue amidst the hundreds of Popes who have reigned. I'll wait.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

I dont know the answer and I dont know of anything that could be any more irrelevant.

I can't make a lengthy and in depth defense for this subject because I am not well studied up on it. Birth control pills are a no brainer but the issues of condoms etc... are a little bit more tricky. Something I need to study up on.

But when I do, I'll be going to the Church fathers and to the popes, not to liberal theologians who think they know better than the Church.

If you don't like the Church's teachings, the door is right there, help yourself. If you dont see the Church as the teaching authority for Christianity - YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. PERIOD.

The essence of being Catholic is obedience to the Church - even when we dont understand something or even radically disagree.

The fact of the matter is, contraception is not a new phenomenon. This has been condemned by a number of the great early Church fathers.

bill bannon said...

Godfearingfiddler

Then Pope John Paul II should have been asked to leave the Church by new converts like you on the issue of the death penalty which he tried to void and which the major Fathers supported as does Romans 13:4 and Genesis 9:5-6 and which Pope Pius XII supported in 1952 when there were already modern life sentences. So John Paul tried to change a real Constant Tradition rooted in Scripture and not one of you pundits called him on it.

Pope John Paul II should also have been asked to leave by new converts like yourself because he tried to void husband headship/mutual subjection and replace it with "mutual subjection" only from Ephesians (Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4). So again a Pope tried to void a real Constant Tradition that goes all the back into the New Testament, and you watchdogs of orthodoxy said boo.

Both issues that Pope John Paul II dissented on have a much longer and clearer pedigree than this issue of NFP which has become a way of salvation which it was not when it was inaccurate in its rythmn form. So that for the first time in history....the natural method is accurate and its adherents are not known to be filled with the large families of the Anabaptists who average ten children in the Hutterites. Wherefore comes the zeal then? Nancy Pilosi who unforetunately is pro abortion probably has more children than most NFPers....5.
I don't think you've read the Fathers or you would be aware of another problem.....the two prominent ones believed with the Stoics that sin was present in the marital act if children were not explicitly willed and the new natural family planning was resisted in the beginning of the 20th century by precisely those theologians who followed Augustine and Jerome too closely....they saw the natural methods as sinful and warned that they too would lead to abortions but the 20th century Popes overcame their rigorist errors in this area.
The error of Augustine and Jerome led to Augustine being incorrect also not just on Onan but on the nature of the Immaculate Conception and Aquinas copied him in that and copied him on it being venial sin to enjoy sex when not willing children....all of which the Church later rejected. So please read the Fathers actually before worshipping them. Do you remember where Scripture warns that a Bishop should not be a new convert lest he be puffed up. You may be appointing yourself a hidden Bishop and doing it in a puffed up manner.

TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Bill - Couple quick points which should be obvious but I'll state them anyway -

I dont worship the Church fathers.

I havent read ALL the Church fathers Ive only been Catholic for a year and a half. Im reading them though. Stay tuned to my blog if you want to see where I'm at in the process cuz I generally blog on what I'm currently reading.

Im not an 'orthodox watchdog' for the Church. Im just a new convert - decidedly right of center and Im expressing my opinions (fancy doing that on a blog).

Just because my opinion is different than yours doesnt mean that I'm a 'self appointed bishop'.

About the issue of headship of the husband - I agree with Saint Paul and Church tradition.

Capital punishment - same thing. I posted on this topic recently.

Finally, I'll keep reading the Church fathers like you suggested and I am excited to learn what they have to say on this and other topics.

bilbannon said...

Just don't become professional....then your lifeblood and mortgage will hinge on whether you support the current Pope's views. And you won't criticize him when you should. Weigel's official biography on John Paul has virtually nothing about the sex abuse scandal despite John Paul's first ten years having the identical miserable 500+ abuse cases that the ten years before him had.
This issue of birth control has the most disturbed lineage of any issues in the Church (once one reads the actual literature that led up it...much of it neurotic in the ancients like Gregory the Great and Sixtus V) and now that NFP is accurate, it makes little sense to say that the act is always open to the transmission of life....it is the male who is always open to the transmission of life....not the act. But there is an emperor's new clothes side to Catholicism coming from the defensive personality we developed since the Reformation. Catholicism is the true Church and is like Vatican II noted....not yet perfect which will only come at the end of time and as the Bride of Christ, she has sins which will only be cleansed by her Spouse by the end of history....not now. Godspeed.

bill bannon said...

One more thing. People are Catholic even if they dissent from birth control....call no one non Catholic...only a Bishop can do so; they are not Catholic if they take part in abortion by automatic excommunication or hold to abortion as a good when confronted not by you but by the Church. The relevant Canons follow:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

Canon law 749-3. "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."

The Vatican itself state that HV was not infallible when they presented it at the press conference in 1968...thereafter in the ensuing years,600+ theologians dissented....relevant because Tuas libenter stated that the universal and common consent of Catholic theologians was a sign (not a requirement) of infallibility...ergo HV and Casti fail under Canon 749-3.
Abortion was infallibly defined as evil in sect. 62 of Evangelium Vitae in an abbreviated form of the infallibility phrases used in the IC and in the Assumption matters. Hence abortion as evil does not fail under 749-3 and is to be held with Catholic faith. It is an over-reach to call contraception abortion since Haring 1975, Theological Studies and Bovens in 2006, Journal of Medical Ethics raised the possibility of NFP preventing implantations due to late timing during the window of ovulation...an unsettled area to date.