"Acceptance of 'Humanae Vitae' is bound up with the acceptance of the lordship of Jesus Christ."

I've had the pleasure of being on "Catholic Answers Live" a couple of times with host Patrick Coffin, and found him to be very funny, quick-witted, and knowledgeable. In addition to his radio work, Patrick is also an author; his new book is titled Sex Au Naturel: What it is and Why it’s Good for your Marriage (Emmaus Road), and it has been praised and endorsed by folks including Peter Kreeft, Cardinal George Pell, Kimberley Hahn, Mark Shea, Fr. Frank Pavone, and other notables. LifeSiteNews.com has just posted an excellent interview with Patrick about his book; here is a short excerpt:

If one is a dissenter - as I have been - what I am saying here probably will not, on its own, make a dent in the dissent.  Acceptance of Humanae Vitae is bound up with the acceptance of the lordship of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not Lord of our sexuality, He is Lord of nothing.

Q. Describe life as a liberal Catholic vs life as a fully believing Catholic.

A: That’s a very good question.  My personal preference is the term heterodoxy over liberalism, but I think the basic answer to your question is that my “liberal Catholic life” was a life half lived. 

The liberal Catholic project wants the trappings of the real thing but without the substance.  It wants the lion of Judah, but without the teeth part of the lion.  My theological training was also geared toward loving the journey (liberals are big on “The Journey”), but not exactly loving the destination.  The search for truth was held in very high esteem, while finding it - not so much. 

When I gave my life to the Lord and finally (albeit slowly) understood that the Catholic Church cannot be separated from her Founder, I got the biggest shock of all: that the Truth had been searching for me all along.

Acceptance of Humanae Vitae is a nearly perfect litmus test for orthodoxy in other areas.  If you hold to this vital part of Catholic teaching, you will also hold to the whole.  Dissent from Humanae Vitae, on the other hand, is invariably joined to dissent from other “life issues,” as we call them nowadays.  When was the last time you saw a gay activist group walking alongside pro-lifers at an anti-abortion rally?  How many pastors who dissent from Humanae Vitae preach homilies against co-habitation?  Humanae Vitae is the wall hook that holds up the entire garment of the Catholic sexual ethic.

Read the entire interview; also check out Patrick's personal blog/site.

Comments

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Minimus: The Jacksonian Institute]

The word "heterodox" is better than "liberal." But "heretic" is better than both. The scrupulous avoidance of this word in certain circles is very interesting.

[zillionaire]

Q. Describe life as a conservative Catholic vs life as a fully believing Catholic.

A: That’s a very good question. My personal preference is the term phariseeism over conservatism, but I think the basic answer to your question is that my “conservative Catholic life” was a life half lived.

The taliban Catholic project wants the trappings of the real thing but without the substance. It wants the lion of Judah, but without the heart part of the lion.

When I gave my life to the Lord and finally (albeit slowly) understood that the Catholic Church cannot be separated from her Founder, I got the biggest shock of all: that the Truth had been searching for me all along.

I realized that Jesus message was a simple message of love for God and love for neighbor, a life that (unfortunately) had very little to do with the code of canon law, the Catholic catechism, or the legalistic and self-serving pronouncements of the clerics.

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Minimus: The Jacksonian Institute]

Exquisitely fashionable, zillionaire. Congratulations!

[LJ]

I realized that Jesus message was a simple message of love for God and love for neighbor -zillionaire

Actually those were commandments. The real question is how?

If you meditate long enough and deep enough and with enough honesty to want to get those commandments right you will eventually find that the "code of canon law, the Catholic catechism, or the legalistic and self-serving pronouncements of the clerics" are all part of the 2000 year history of answering that question, how does Jesus want me to love God and love my neighbor?

And isn't that what Patrick Coffin is saying in the interview; that rejecting the teachings of Humanae Vitae is in essence to reject God, as in Jesus commandment to love God? It is just one part of the answer to the question "how."

[zillionaire]

Perhaps, LJ, but the more deeply, honestly, and prayerfully that I reflect, the more doubts that I have about the collective wisdom of the Catholic church and the more that I suspect that accepting God and following Jesus' coommandments might require rejecting this church.

I posted to make the point that prayerful Catholics will not always agree, since these issues are not absolute, and Coffin's point and your response clearly demonstrate the other "my way or the highway" position.

Thanks, and best wishes for a blessed Christmas, all.

[Rachel McTavish]

Zillionaire! My goodness, what a Chestertonian wit -- and so brave to use your Christian name! Everyone knows that conservativism is comparable to the Taliban since both groups kill innocents, especially apostates from Islam, non-burkaed females, and Jews in the wrong place -- it's just that the Taliban kill more of 'em.

I never heard the likening of orthodoxy with phariseeism before. My you do have new material.

[zillionaire]

Rachel, it amazes me when I challenge intolerant, narrow-minded, and unloving Christians
and someone leaps to their defense and takes it personally. Who or what are you defending?

The interview suggests that liberal Catholics live "lives half lived," so I changed a few words and rewrote it to suggest that conservative Catholics live lives half lived.

The point is that prayerful Catholics can disagree. If the Catholic church is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," then there must be room for everyone.

Clearly, there is only one TRUTH, so we need not make room for anyone who does not follow the ten commandments or love God and their neighbor, but is a papal pronouncement, outside of an ecumenical council, really supposed to be the litmus test for whether one loves God?

If, on the other hand, the Catholic church is one of many clubs, and it can decide who joins the club and under what conditions, then there need not be room for everyone, and we can all join our own clubs and make our own rules. The Catholic church has lots of rules.

LJ responded in a respectful and thoughtful way, but I felt the need to respond to his inference that one who meditated deeply and honestly would reach his conclusion. Not so.

Please weigh in, if you have anything constructive and respectful to offer. Thanks.

[Donna]

>When was the last time you saw a gay >activist group walking alongside pro-lifers >at an anti-abortion rally?

Well, I did see a group called Gays for Life at the March for Life some years ago. (I still remember their buttons - an inverted pink triangle with an unborn baby ) I spoke to one of them in passing, and her reasoning was simple - she was firmly convinced homosexuality was genetic, and that once the gene was identified, 'gay babies' would be aborted and the gay community would shrink away.

It was a small group, though...

[LJ]

zillionaire,

Now that you have expanded it, I think I understand your position better. It sounds very similar to the objection that many Protestants of many stripes have to the claims the Catholic Church. Ultimately it is about the authority of the Church, and in this case specifically the authority to teach, without error, on faith and morals.

Prudentially speaking you are right that there is room for disagreement in the Catholic Church, but I think the designators "liberal" and "conservative" are perhaps misleading in this case, on Patrick Coffin's part as well as your own. There is too much overlay of American politics and ideology, and far too much emotional investment, particularly after recent elections.

I forget the source of the quote, and I will have to paraphrase it here, but it has been suggested that most people who depart from the Catholic Church do so not because of the creed, but because of the commandments.

In essence what is being said is that when the Church teaches what is not palatable in morals, a certain number of people circumvent the merits of the argument to challenge the authority of the Church to teach it. I think Patrick Coffin is saying that he was one of those.

The argument you make regarding the message of Jesus is reminiscent to me, as a convert, to the position taught me in my youth, that is, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In effect, when you suggest that there are many Christian clubs and we must decide which to join, you are referencing an authority, some authority, outside the Church, on which to base that decision. I have to presume that authority is Scripture, and if it supersedes the authority of the Church, effectively it is Sola Scriptura.

If your argument is that Humanae Vitae and other such teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and morals are subject to prudential judgment, that is a question that has been asked and answered, over and over, for the past forty years. That I think, is Patrick Coffin's reference to the Lordship of Christ.

And, bottom line, the Church claims the authority of Christ. If that is true, whether we disagree with specifics, or chafe under them, it doesn't change the authority. How that is phariseeism, or resembles the Taliban I fail to see. If anyone is saying "my way or the highway", it is Jesus, and that is Coffin's main point, I think.

[zillionaire]

LJ, you are absolutely correct that this is about the authority of the church and that designators like "conservative" and "liberal" are misleading.

Although others may depart from the church because of the commandments, not because of the creed, that is not my situation. Likewise, although others may look only to Scripture for authority, that is not my situation, either.

When all of the bishops met in Nicea to address theological issues which were fundamental to our faith, then the church could claim authority on faith and morals.

However, when a pope issues an encyclical on his own, without addressing the issue at an ecumenical council, then the church cannot claim the same authority.

For "Humanae Vitae," the Pope chose not to address the issue at Vatican II and not to heed the recommendations of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control.

Because of the dissent within the church on these issues, where it is evident that prayerful Catholics disagree, this is the worst possible "litmus test" for Catholics.

If we want a Catholic litmus test, we find it elsewhere. God gave us ten commandments in the Old Testament, and Jesus gave us two commandments in the New Testament. Neither gave us a 600 page catechism. We did that.

Jesus said, "If they are not against us, they are with us." He did not say, "If they do not agree with Humanae Vitae, then they are against us," which makes me wonder why someone even needs or wants a Catholic litmus test.

The Pharisees were more concerned with the letter of the law than with the spirit of the law, and the Taliban is so rabid about religion that they violate its tenets.

In my opinion, it is like the Pharisees to apply a litmus test or to consider actions, regardless of intentions, and it is worthy of the Taliban to promote Christian principles that produce unchristian outcomes.

Either the Pharisees or the Taliban might rather enforce every chapter and verse of the human catechism, regardless of whether it honored the divine commandments.

For example, if Jesus shared the Last Supper with Judas, why won't we offer Communion to remarried Catholics? Here, we are honoring the catechism, not the commandment.

Thanks, LJ, for your insightful comments.

[Carl E. Olson]

God gave us ten commandments in the Old Testament, and Jesus gave us two commandments in the New Testament. Neither gave us a 600 page catechism. We did that.

In the end, this boils down to a false and dangerous pitting of the Head against the Body. God gave us the Church through Jesus Christ. That same Church, whose soul is the Holy Spirit, gifted us with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Catechism is a work of the Magisterium; it contains, explains, and expounds on the Torah, the words and actions of Christ, and the meaning of the Catholic Faith. In saying that Paul VI failed to "heed the recommendations of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control", you make an appeal to an authority that was not an authority, setting it against (and over, apparently), a true authority, the Petrine office, established by Christ. So, while you aren't a Protestant, your approach is very much in keeping with what Luther, Calvin, and Co. did.

[zillionaire]

Carl, most historians and theologians agree that
Jesus did not set out to create a church; He set out to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of God to the lost sheep of Israel.

Although the human church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I doubt that He guided the launching of the Crusades or the persecution of Galileo or the practice of simony, which Luther rightly opposed.

Surely you can respect the difference between a pope acting alone and an ecumenical council, even if you do not respect a pontifical commission.

Although we can recognize apostolic succession, we must consider the anti-popes and bad popes, as well as those who inherited or purchased their offices or who were selected by secular rulers.

The real dangerous and false position is the idolatry of confusing the words and works of God with the words and works of men.

Thanks for responding.

[Carl E. Olson]

most historians and theologians agree that Jesus did not set out to create a church; He set out to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of God to the lost sheep of Israel.

If, by "most", you mean "most liberal German theologians from the Tübingen school, writing from the mid-19th century into the early 20th century", then I'd say you're onto something. And, yes, liberal Catholic theologians such as Loisy ("Jesus preached the kingdom of God; but what came was the church.") took up this falsehood. But this is not only recent, it is a minority view and it has suffered major blows in recent decades, especially from scholars of the so-called "Third Quest" (see, for example, the work of N.T. Wright, for starters). It is also, of course, a view strongly rejected by the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches), as "Lumen Gentium" makes abundantly clear:

To carry out the will of the Father, Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of heaven on earth and revealed to us the mystery of that kingdom. By His obedience He brought about redemption. The Church, or, in other words, the kingdom of Christ now present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world. (par. 3)

Joseph Ratzinger, in Called to Communion (Ignatius, 1996), noted that the "immediate message" of Jesus was not the Church, but the Kingdom; he then states, however, that "a historical reading of the texts reveals that the opposition of Kingdom and Church has no factual basis" (p. 21). He then states, a bit later, that Loisy's remark is better "recast" as: "The Kingdom was promised, what came was Jesus" (p. 23). Put simply, the modernist rupture between the Kingdom and the Church is but one more "either/or" premise rooted in the Protestant dynamic of seeing conflict where continuity exists (i.e., faith and words, predestination and free will, authority and equality, sacraments and Spirit, etc.).

Although the human church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I doubt that He guided the launching of the Crusades...

Your remarks consistently betray a sloppy and/or faulty understanding of the distinctions between Magisterial teaching and non-Magisterial teaching (see this article for a primer). In addition, this remark shows a very poor understanding of the goal and purpose of the Crusades (see this article and this article for clarification). As for Galileo, the word "persecution" is laughable. One can readily admit that certain Catholic leaders could have handled matters better (as John Paul II admitted) without having to grovel before the mythology of Galileo the Pure Martyr. See George Sim Johnson's article, "The Galileo Affair", for a basic guide.

Surely you can respect the difference between a pope acting alone and an ecumenical council, even if you do not respect a pontifical commission.

I surely understand the difference between the varying levels of authority placed on certain papal and conciliar documents. What I don't understand is how you claim (at least implicitly) that the Commission--which was appointed by Pope John XXIII!--had a certain magisterial authority that Pope Paul VI then had to submit to. It's obviously illogical.

Although we can recognize apostolic succession, we must consider the anti-popes and bad popes...

Again, we distinguish between the office and the man, recognizing that all men are sinners, yet certain men are given certain authority in certain situations/instances. There is, obviously, a difference between impeccability and infallibility; that's basic catechesis.

The real dangerous and false position is the idolatry of confusing the words and works of God with the words and works of men.

And yet we are all in the position of hearing the Word of God in and through the witness and words of men, including in Scripture. So, what to do? You apparently believe you have a direct pipeline to the truth, free of all bias and subjectivity. I believe that the truth has been preserved, proclaimed, and presented throughout history in and through the Church, the Body of Christ and the household of God. That doesn't keep me from directly praying to Jesus, of course, but it does make me cautious about establishing myself as pope of a church of one.

[Rosie H.]

May I weigh in with a more personal take? I have recently come to see what it means when we call the Catholic Church "Mother Church," and it is exactly because of all the rules, catechisms, and magesterium. It is true that love of God and neighbor is what it all boils down to; but it can be hard to live these principles on your own. The rules of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, are there to help us, like a mother's rules help her children. They are there out of mercy, to help us when we are confused, or need a strong authority to turn to. I would feel lost without the authority of the Church; I don't feel qualified to judge every matter of faith and morals myself, or emotionally or intellectually stable enough. I am glad to be able to trust the Church. This isn't just being cowardly and letting someone else doing my thinking for me (at least, ideally it's not); it's trusting God, through the institution He set up. This requires a lot of humility, but like every act of humility, it results in peace, even though it doesn't seem like it before you take the leap.

So in the magisterium I find the "heart" of the lion of Judah, in the Pope our Holy "Father" and the Church our "Mother." You are probably already doing so, but I would urge you to pray for clarity about this, and for understanding of what it means to say Mother Church. If you believe that the Church was set up by Christ and is led by the Holy Spirit, follow it wholly, even if you have a hard time with parts of it.

In regards to controversial Church teachings, I once heard someone say that it reminded her of when people stopped following Jesus after he gave the teaching of the Eucharist, and he asked the apostles if they would leave him too, and they said "Where can we go? You have the words of everlasting life." It's the same with the Church, as Christ's representative; where else would we go?

[LJ]

To your point Carl,

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. -Matthew 16:18

[zillionaire]

Carl, as you point out, Joseph Ratzinger said that the "immediate message" of Jesus was not the Church, but the Kingdom; That was my point, and you wasted a lot of ink pretending to disagree.

The historical record of the Crusades and Galileo speaks for itself. I stand by my statements.

My point about the Pontiifial Commission is not that it is binding on the pope or superior to him. The fact that a papal commission, comprised of experts from the clergy and laity, reached the opposite conclusion, proves that prayerful Catholics disagree on this point.

I understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability. If history proves that flawed people always perform holy duties flawlessly, then I would have to agree with you. Otherwise, you should agree with me that we should not let our popes do our thinking for us.

When did I annoint myself as my own pope? Typically, I agree with the pope. Sometimes, especially in instances like Humanae Vitae, where prayerful Catholics do not agree, I do not.

Whether we agree with the pope all or the time or some of the time or none of the time, we must assume responsibility for our decisions and we will be held accountable for them.

I think that you would be a more effective blogger, if you did not insult your readers. No one who knows me has ever accused me of being arrogant or faulty or sloppy -- your cheap shots are unbecoming, and they weaken your argument.

Rosie, I am glad that you have found comfort in the church and that you trust its authority. We agree that humility is an important virtue, which is sometimes difficult for all of us to practice. (At times, it seems difficult for the church and the clergy, too. And some bloggers.)

I love the church, and I respect that it is a human institution, which is divinely inspired.

Having said that, history has proven that the church sometimes reflects more of its human aspect than its divine origin, so I believe that we each have a responsibility to be prayerful and respectful, whether we accept or reject a particular teaching of the church.

Thanks for responding.

[Carl E. Olson]

Carl, as you point out, Joseph Ratzinger said that the "immediate message" of Jesus was not the Church, but the Kingdom; That was my point, and you wasted a lot of ink pretending to disagree.

No, I wasted a lot of ink replying to someone who apparently isn't aware of what he wrote. Here it is: "Carl, most historians and theologians agree that Jesus did not set out to create a church..." Ratzinger (and the Catholic Church) did not say that Jesus didn't set out or intend or want to create a Church, but that in doing so he first proclaimed the Kingdom. The difference is substantial. The first (and erroneous) view is that Jesus did not mean or wish to establish the Church; the second (and correct) view is that Jesus did mean and wish to establish the Church, and did so in a particular way.

The historical record of the Crusades and Galileo speaks for itself. I stand by my statements.

Which do not do justice to the historical record. Noted. You should hang with Jack Chick and Tim LaHaye; they use the same form of non-argumentative argument.

The fact that a papal commission, comprised of experts from the clergy and laity, reached the opposite conclusion, proves that prayerful Catholics disagree on this point.

A non sequitur. The history of the Church is filled with instances of this or that expert (Arius! Luther!) or body of experts (Nestorians! Protestants!) disagreeing with Church authority. It doesn't make them right. It makes them disagreeable.

Otherwise, you should agree with me that we should not let our popes do our thinking for us.

Uh, yeah, that's what I'm arguing. Sounds like what a relative said to me upon finding out that I was leaving Evangelicalism to become Catholic: "Why would join a Church that tells you what to think?" Brilliant. How about this: I'll argue for what I think and you argue against what you think I think but really haven't a clue about.

When did I annoint myself as my own pope?

Well, let's read the two sentences immediately following: "Typically, I agree with the pope. Sometimes, especially in instances like Humanae Vitae, where prayerful Catholics do not agree, I do not." That's where, for starters. Your "argument" is like that of a serial adulterer who says, "Typically, I'm faithful to my wife. Sometimes, in instances like a gorgeous temptress, I am not."

I think that you would be a more effective blogger, if you did not insult your readers.

Exposing smirking, strutting know-it-alls dressed up in pompous pseudo-piety is not insulting; it's a public service. And it's free.

No one who knows me has ever accused me of being arrogant or faulty or sloppy...

You might be a neat freak for all I know. But your arguments are sloppy and your facts are faulty.

-- your cheap shots are unbecoming, and they weaken your argument.

If it was obvious that you knew what an argument really is, I'd consider your advice.

[zillionaire]

Carl, I am ignoring your cheap shots to address your substance, point by point:

...chirp chirp chirp...

Merry Chrsitmas and Happy New Year to you and your readers.

[Sharon]

As Pope Benedict XVI said "It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate."

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Excellent work Carl. Great men of the past left us a legacy of wisdom; we do good to ourselves usufructing from it. While borrowing these thoughts I am convinced we identify with them if our minds recognize they have proximity with what we believe, what we defend as our own.

We are wrong believing that our aptitude for reasoning and discernment are opposites. Judgement is only the greatness of the light of the mind. To so high a degree brightness penetrates the recesses of things. It finds everything that is exceptional. Thus it must be admitted that it is the greatness of light of the mind that yields all the effects assigned to judgement.

An obstinate dissenter thinks more of what is about to say than answering correctly what is said to him and sophistic dissenters soon expose the feebleness of their affirmations. Listening well and answering well is an exceptional virtue, quite rare.

One of your prized remarks pertained to popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II (12-18-10) which verify papal sense of responsibility conjoined to primordial duties of all successors of Peter. Disobedience to our Holy Father means more than a difference of opinion; perseverence on such bearing denotes unyielding withdrawal from Church precepts.

The parting Paul VI took from the Commission's advice was, perhaps, his greatest evidence of papal fiat with legitimate authority to do so. The enormous opposition to Humanae Vitae from Fr. Curran and 200 dissenting theologians could be compared to St. Paul's words: we are not fighting merely flesh and blood, but spritual powers of evil.

[LJ]

The enormous opposition to Humanae Vitae from Fr. Curran and 200 dissenting theologians could be compared to St. Paul's words: we are not fighting merely flesh and blood, but spritual powers of evil. -Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto

Amen.