Vigano, Pope Francis, McCarrick and the Glamour of Evil

Many Catholics will be familiar with the question, “Do you reject the glamour of evil?”  It was part of the older form of the renewal of baptismal promises.  The “glamour of evil” is a curious expression that I think speaks to the reaction many Catholics are having in the face of the ongoing clerical scandals in the Church.

Wilde Times

I think most people interpret that phrase, “the glamour of evil” to mean that evil can seem superficially attractive.  If we let it, it has the power to draw us in, even when we know its wrong.  As Oscar Wilde famously put it, “I can resist everything…except temptation.”  But I think there is another dimension to that phrase that this scandal is revealing.

More and more, I am seeing otherwise good, faithful people unable to focus on anything but the latest horrifying tidbit to come across their social media feeds, no matter how unsubstantiated it may be.   I see other good and faithful people who can’t resist goading each other, either because each new vile story is just more proof that  “Pope Francis has failed” or just another example of the “vast right-wing conspiracy that’s plotting to get Pope Francis.”

Cardinal Popper

It seems to me that despite whatever good intentions we may have, we are all running the risk of being unintentionally seduced by glamour of the evil that is pouring out of the church. We have inadvertently become obsessed with it,  like some people can’t get enough of those “Dr. Popper” pimple videos on YouTube, or how you just can’t bring yourself to look away from that horrific accident where blood and transmission fluid are smeared across the highway.  A melange of death and gore.

Look Away…Look Away….

Evil is glamorous, not only in the sense that it can be hard to resist being drawn into it, but also in the sense that it can be hard to look away from it.  If you aren’t careful, it’s tremendously easy to stare at it, and stare at it, and stare at it, until you can’t see anything else.  Until everything good, and godly, and righteous, and beautiful has been drained from view, and all that is left is outrage, and anger, and indignation, and disgust.

Pollyanna Need Not Apply

I don’t mean to imply that we should adopt some Pollyanna perspective that simply pretends everything is just fine while the Cathedral burns to the ground.  I’ve read the PA Grand Jury Report.  I’ve read Vigano’s testimony.  As both a pastoral counselor who works with abuse victims  and someone in Catholic media, I can’t afford to not know what’s going on. I am as unfortunately well-informed as anyone can be about all the latest appalling news.

Moreover, I don’t think we can afford to not be well-informed.  As I have written before, this is going to have to be a lay-led reform, and we can’t lead the reform if we aren’t well-informed.

Even so, we all have to remember to do whatever we can to intentionally and consciously drag ourselves out of the cesspool at least several times a day to remember that God is good.  That there is still beauty in the world.  That the Holy Spirit is alive and well. That there are real, hurting people who need to see that someone…anyone in the Church is still capable of love, compassion, and goodness.  And that nothing good comes from swimming in a sewer and throwing sh*t at each other all day long.

RSVP Satan

Whatever “kind” of Catholic you are (left, right, middle, upside-down), whoever’s ox you would like to see gored, maybe we would all do well to pause a few times a day.  Step away from social media.  Hug your kids.  Give thanks to God for something. Help someone who is hurting.  Just…be kind to someone–for God’s sake.  Literally.

Satan is throwing a huge party, and yes, we need to stay on top of it so that maybe, just maybe, we can stop it from turning into a riot that burns down the entire block (or, y’know, theocratic city-state).  But the one thing I can guarantee is that you are not doing anyone any good by sending in your RSVP to Hatefest 2018 and diving into the mosh pit.

Please. I know it isn’t as much fun as raking muck.  I know that it’s hard to resist when everyone, including the highest officials in the church, are acting like competitors in some coke-fueled mud-wrestling tournament.  But please.  Do yourself a favor.  Do the world a favor.  Do the actual victims a favor. And do whatever you can to resist the glamour of evil. Look away.  A little bit. Just enough to remember St Paul’s words. “Brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Phil 4:8).

Yes. Be aware. Be informed. By all means, be motivated to act. But at all costs, in big and small ways, please, be a force for good.  Because even if you don’t join in,  there is plenty of evil to go around right now. And unfortunately, I promise it will all still be there when you get back from your break.

The Pope, The APA, and “Born That Way.” What Science Really Says About Homosexuality

As you have most likely read, recent news outlets quote clerical sexual abuse survivor, Juan Carlos Cruz, saying that Pope Francis told him that his homosexuality “does not matter.”  In Juan Carlos’ words, the Holy Father told him,  “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”

What’s Said In the Vatican, Stays in the Vatican

It is hard to know, of course, what Pope Francis did or did not say.  The reports quote Juan Carlos’ recognition of events, not the Pope’s actual words, and no good pastor would ever publicly reveal what was said during pastoral or spiritual direction even if the directee were to make his or her version of those events public.  Such comments are the domain of what the church calls, “the internal forum” and, as such, enjoy an even more serious level of confidentiality than doctor-patient priviledge.

That said, the Holy Father’s reported comments give the faithful another opportunity to address the idea that “science has proven” that LGBT people are “born that way.”

What Science Has To Say

Here is how the American Psychological Association responds to the question, “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?” which is posted on their FAQ page titled, “Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

So What?

For any Catholic, especially the Pope, to imply or directly state that homosexuality is somehow ordained by God would be both theologically incorrect from a Catholic point of view (see below),  and, even more importantly, scientifically incorrect, since the prevailing, professional view is that we simply don’t know what the origins of homosexuality are.  In light of this, I do find it difficult to imagine that the Pope would have said exactly what Mr. Cruz claims.

Not Lying

Incidentally, I am not accusing Mr. Cruz of lying.  As a counselor, I know that what I say to a client in a session is often repeated to a spouse, child, or other person in a manner that has absolutely no resemblance to what I actually said or meant to say.  The client isn’t lying.  They are simply using their own words to communicate what they honestly thought I meant, or the feeling that I conveyed to them, even if it is not exactly what I said.

I would not be surprised to learn that the Holy Father told Mr. Cruz that God loved him deeply, or that Mr. Cruz’s homosexuality should never be seen as an obstacle to the movement of God’s grace and healing in his life, or that Mr. Cruz deserves the love and support of the Church regardless of his sexual identity, or that God has profound compassion for the struggle Mr Cruz has faced.  All of these things would be thoughtful and authentic pastoral responses to someone in Mr. Cruz’s situation.

Good Pastors Serve The Truth

But a good pastor has an obligation to the truth, as does any Christian.  No client or spiritual directee is ever served well by platitudes, half-truths, or useful fictions, even if they are offered with the best of intentions.  Lying, or misrepresenting the facts, even for a good cause, is still lying.

Even if people were inclined to believe that the Holy Father could arbitrarily change doctrine, even the Pope can’t change science.  The simple fact is, even those scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying LGBT issues, and who would have no objection to asserting that homosexuality was genetic (and, in fact, could be thought to be in favor of such an assertion) can’t bring themselves to make the claim that LGBT persons are “made” to be LGBT from birth.

What YOU Need to Know.

Whatever the Holy Father did or didn’t say to Mr. Cruz, the most important thing for Catholics to know and share with their friends about the Church’s pastoral response to LGBT issues is that neither we nor scientists know why people have the sexual orientation that they do, but that regardless of their orientation, all people are loved by God, invited to share in his life of grace, called to repentance and communion, and deserving of the love and respect of their fellow human beings.

Dr. Greg Popcak is a pastoral counselor, an associate professor of pastoral studies, and the author of Holy Sex!

*NOTE: The following is the what the Catechism teaches about Homosexuality.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of gravedepravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they areChristians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

“Popes Say the Darndest Things” (Zika Edition)–Clarity for Confused Catholics

shutterstock_209615056

Are you confused, frustrated by, or for that matter, gloating about Pope Francis’ recent comments on contraceptive use and the Zika virus–especially in light of the Vatican Press Office’s confirmation that Pope Francis was not only speaking about using Natural Family Planning but also, potentially, hormonal contraceptives and condoms, to prevent the possibility of children born with Zika-related miroencephaly?   Be at peace.  Let’s all please take a collective breath and consider the following in which Dr. Janet Smith, world-renowned expert on Catholic sexual ethics and professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, offers some sensitive, sensible guidance regarding the context in which these comments need to be understood.

The following is a sample, but I ask you to please take the time to read the whole article which appears at Catholic World Report.

In it, Dr. Smith writes…

It is time to review some basic principles that bear upon the question of the morality of contraception.

Meaning of contraception: Thing and act

First, let us note that the word “contraception” is used to describe both a thing and an act. Only the act permits of moral analysis. There are many “things” called contraception, such as the many forms of the pill, the condom, the IUD, and the patch. Contraception as an act permitting of moral analysis is the act of doing something before, during, or after an act of spousal intercourse to prevent the act from achieving the end of procreation.

The Church teaches that acts of contraception are always against the plan of God for human sexuality, since God intended that each and every act of spousal intercourse express both the intention to make a complete, unitive gift of one’s self to one’s spouse and the willingness to be a parent with one’s spouse. These meanings of the spousal act are, as Humanae Vitae stated, inseparable.

Moreover, many forms of contraception work not by preventing ovulation or preventing conception but by either destroying an embryonic human being or rendering the uterus an inhospitable place for an embryonic human being. These “contraceptives” are not truly contraceptives. They cause the death of a new human being and are rightly called abortifacients. Both contraception and abortion are absolute evils, with abortion being a much more serious evil.

Therapeutic use of hormones

It often causes confusion that the Church permits the use of the hormones that are in the contraceptive pill to treat certain physical conditions. For instance, a woman who has ovarian cysts or who suffers from endometriosis may find that taking the hormones that are present in the contraceptive pill relieve her from some of the pain that results from such conditions. Women who use those hormones with the intent of reducing pain and not with the intent of rendering their sexual acts infertile are not engaging in acts of contraception. In the terminology of the principle of double effect, they are using hormones in pursuit of the good effect of reducing pain and, as a secondary effect, they are tolerating the infertility caused by the hormones they are taking.

Nuns in the Congo

It also confuses many that the officials of the Church many decades ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. They would not be altering the purpose of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. Rather, they would be defending themselves against the possible consequences of an act of rape. Keep in mind that it is justifiable for a woman to inflict great physical harm, even death, on a man threatening rape. Her act of killing the rapist is not justified as a “lesser evil” because killing is not a lesser evil than enduring rape. Rather, her act is an act of just and moral self-defense.  

Thus, for a woman to do something to prevent a rapist’s sperm from uniting with her ovum is a part of justifiable self-defense. Her act has nothing to do with violating God’s plan for sexuality. She is not choosing to use contraception to prevent a spousal act of sexual intercourse from achieving its natural end. She is not refusing to make a complete gift of herself to her spouse.  She is fending off a rapist and all his physicality. Clearly, her use of ovulation-suppressing hormones is not an act of contraception. (A good source for information about the history/reasoning concerning the nuns in the Congo is Fr. Edward Bayer’s Rape Within Marriage (1985), pp. 82-3)

Principle of choosing the lesser evil

The principle of choosing the lesser evil (PCLE) is often misunderstood. It does not apply to doing a lesser moral evil to avoid a greater moral evil. That is, for instance, one cannot directly kill one innocent human being to save the lives of several other innocent human beings. One cannot cheat one’s customers for money to give to the poor.

We must remember that the word “evil” does not refer only to moral evil. The word “evil” refers to any imperfection of any kind, for instance, to any physical imperfection. Blindness, for instance, or lameness are physical “evils.”

The PCLE applies to the common sense choices to do or undergo some non-moral evil for the sake of some greater good. One can destroy property to save life, such as breaking down a door to save a child trapped behind the door and in danger. It is not a moral evil to destroy the property. Yes “evil” is done—the door is broken and can’t be used—but the evil is a physical evil, not a moral one. Rather, it is morally good to break down the door.

The PCLE does not justify a woman using contraception to prevent a pregnancy because she fears the child may suffer some harm during the pregnancy. Here a woman is choosing to do something immoral to prevent harm. This choice violates the fundamental principle that we must never do moral evil to achieve good. She would be intending to thwart the purpose and meaning of the sexual act in order to protect any child conceived from harm, but she is doing harm—to the marital act and her marital relationship—by using contraception to prevent a pregnancy.

There are all sorts of “harm” that spouses may wish to attempt to avoid by using contraception. In fact, one suspects that there is always some harm spouses are trying to avoid by using contraception—harms such as financial stress, inconvenience, threats to the mother’s health, sexual frustration, etc. The Church has never taught that if the harms are serious enough, it is permissible to use contraception, for that would be choosing to do moral evil to avoid harm.

To suggest that some “emergency” or “special situation” would permit a person in conscience to use contraception does not align with Catholic moral theology. For spouses to use contraception is always wrong. How can any emergency or special situation justify what is always wrong? It is an improper use of conscience to use it to discern that it is moral to do what is intrinsically wrong in special situations.  CONTINUE READING

———–

I would add to Janet’s thoughtful comments that even the Pope cannot change Church teaching.  We are all–Pope and layperson alike–merely servants of the repository of truth given to us by Christ and affirmed by 2000 years of prayer, discernment, spirit-filled discussion, and grace.  In this recent news story, the Holy Father made some off-the-cuff comments about a very serious medical and pastoral situation. These comments must be considered carefully in light of his teaching authority as the Bishop of Rome (as Pope Francis often prefers to refer to himself). But ultimately, even papal opinion stands or falls by its ability to reflect the continuity of our Tradition. If you would like an accessible, helpful guide for really understanding and living the truth about the Catholic teaching regarding sex and love, I’d invite you to check out Holy Sex!  The Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving.  And of course, I’ll offer more thoughts as this story develops.

Kim Davis is a Mess. So What?

A lot of people are putting out a lot of spin trying to explain away, contextualize, minimize and otherwise  dismiss Pope Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis.  And guess what?  It is all irrelevant. In fact, it’s downright shameful.

It really doesn’t matter how the meeting came about or what was said between them. It also doesn’t matter that her life is a hot mess, or that she has done plenty of damage in her own life against the sanctity of marriage. The real point is that, when asked on the flight home, Pope Francis publicly affirmed civil disobedience as a “basic human right.”

A person doesn’t have to be perfect, or even decent, to have the right to exercise his or her basic human rights.  One doesn’t have to agree with Kim Davis to affirm her right to object to what she believes is an unjust law.  As I argued previously, regardless of what you think of her, Kim Davis has a basic human right to refuse to resign and, instead, engage in civil disobedience if she is being asked to do things she finds to be morally objectionable.

Furthermore, all Christians, and indeed, all persons of good will,  have a moral obligation to support her and anyone else who acts in accordance with their conscience, especially when that puts them in conflict with the law. That doesn’t mean that conscientious objectors can act consequence-free, but it does mean that they should be able to act without encountering the derision of others–especially people-of-faith.

Shame on anyone who would attempt to dismiss or minimize another person’s basic human rights because those rights were not to their political liking.  Without an inconvenient right to conscientious objection, true religious liberty does not exist in any meaningful way.  Religious people, of all people, ought to know better.

Pope Francis on Marriage, “Marital Wounds Hurt Children.”

pope-francis-1

Pope Francis made some powerful observations about the importance of working to create strong marriages.

“Dear Brothers and Sisters: We know well that every family on occasion suffers moments when one family member offends another. Through our words, actions, or omissions, instead of expressing love for our spouse or children, we can sometimes diminish or demean that love. Hiding these hurts only deepens such wounds, leading to anger and friction between loved ones. If these wounds are particularly deep, they can even lead a spouse to search for understanding elsewhere, to the detriment of the family, especially children. Being one flesh, any wounds that spouses suffer are shared by their children, born of their flesh. When we remember how Jesus warned adults not to scandalize little ones (cf. Mt 18:6), we better understand the vital responsibility to maintain and protect the bond of marriage which is the foundation of the human family. We thank God that although these wounds may lead some to separation, even then many men and women remain true to their conjugal bond, sustained by faith and by love for their children. For those who enter into so-called irregular situations, we must reflect on how best to help and accompany them in their lives. Let us ask the Lord for a strong faith to see with his eyes the reality of family life, and for a deep love to approach all families with his merciful heart.”

Good Marriage: The Heart of the New Evangelization

What a wonderful reminder Pope Francis gives us of the importance of working on our marriage and family lives.  Christians often feel selfish about working on their marriage.  It feels self-serving or too insular.  But the truth is marriage is an extremely part of God’s plan for saving the world!  Marriage and family life gives the world a witness of God’s love in the flesh.  For the modern person, words are a poor means of evangelization.  People have heard it all.  “I love you”, “I’ll always be here”, “You can count on me” are promises that are too easy to make and easier, still, to break in the modern world.  One of the reasons Pope St. John Paul the Great emphasized marriage and family life in both his Theology of the Body and the New Evangelization is that solid, passionate, loving, joyful marriages and families are the best way to show the world that Catholicism has something true, good and beautiful to offer the world.  When we work on our marriages and strengthen our families, far from being self-indulgent or inward-looking, we are giving God the tools by which he can show the world an icon of his transformative love.

In additional to our Catholic Tele-Counseling Practice for couples, families and individuals, here are some of the resources The Pastoral Solutions Institute offers to help couples live out the kind of joyful, passionate, grace-filled marriages that God wants for each of his children.

For Better…FOREVER! The Catholic Guide to Lifelong Marriage—  Examines marriage from Honeymoon to Happily Ever After and offers couples of every age skills they can use to live For Better…FOREVER!

The Exceptional Seven Percent:  Nine Secrets of the World’s Happiest Couples— Discover the nine traits that distinguish the happiest couples of all, the 7% of first-and-forever marriages that report uncommon satisfaction and stability.

Just Married:  The Catholic Guide to Surviving and Thriving in the First 5 Years of Marriage–God wants your marriage to be the Greatest Love Story Ever Told!  Discover how to build the kind of foundation for your marriage that will continue to nourish your relationship for years to come!

When Divorce is NOT and Option: How to Heal Your Marriage and Nurture Lasting Love— Research reveals 8 habits that separates marriage masters from marriage disasters.  Discover how to transform your relationship–even if you’re the only one working on it!

Holy Sex!  The Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving— Explore the secrets of celebrating a more passionate, sensual, soulful marital sexuality.  Discover practical steps for resolving differences and experience even more joyful, marital intimacy!

Something Fishy? Why is THIS Missing from Pope Francis’ Environmental Encyclical?

Image Shutterstock

Image Shutterstock

I was not one of the many Catholics dreading the publication of Laudato Si.  I teach a college course on Catholic Social Teaching and stewardship of the environment is one of the major themes of this great and influential body of work.  As Catholics, we believe that when the Word of God became flesh, all of creation was raised to a new dignity in Christ.  Human beings do not own the world, we are merely stewards of it.  It is an established point of Catholic social doctrine that all of us have a grave moral duty to do what we can to leave this planet in better shape than we found it. As Pope Francis inspiringly notes, honoring God’s creation is  an important way that God’s people give praise to him.

Wanted:  Strong Catholic Voice

In light of this, I was genuinely looking forward to reading what Pope Francis had to say on this important issue.  In all the debate about environmental policy, strong Catholic moral leadership has been conspicuous by its absence.  In this regard, Pope Francis does not disappoint.  He does a wonderful job recognizing the common errors that many secular environmentalists make–from worshiping the earth as a deity to misguided efforts to “save” the planet through abortion and population control and many others–and makes many excellent, practical points about how people can promote an approach to environmental stewardship that improves the life of the planet while simultaneously improving the lot of the poor.

Something Fishy:  A Curious Absence

That said, as a frequent writer on issues related to sexuality, there was one thing I was seriously disappointed to not find in the document; namely, any reference to the serious problem of water pollution caused by the build-up of contraceptive hormones in the water supply resulting in health problems for both wildlife and, potentially, people.  This is not a small issue, nor is it a fringe “Catholic” issue.

For instance, in March of 2015, The Washington Post published an article titled, Fish Don’t Want Birth Control, but Scientists Say They Get it from Your Pill.  Here’s a snippet.

Your birth control pill is affecting more than just your body. Flushed down toilets, poured down sinks and excreted in urine, a chemical component in the pill wafts into sewage systems and ends up in various waterways where it collects in fairly heavy doses. That’s where fish soak it up.  recent survey by the U.S. Geological Survey found that fish exposed to a synthetic hormone called 17a-ethinylestradiol, or EE2, produced offspring that struggled to fertilize eggs. The grandchildren of the originally exposed fish suffered a 30 percent decrease in their fertilization rate. The authors mulled the impact of what they discovered and decided it wasn’t good.

The WaPo article echoes many points raised in a 2012  article by the science portal LiveScience titled, Water Pollution Caused by Birth Control Poses Dilemma.  More frightening still, an article appearing around the same time in The Daily Mail cited similar problems in European waterways, and further suggested that artificial hormones in the water supply could be having a negative impact on human male sperm count–which has lowered, on average, by 25% in the last 20 years.

No Easy Answers

 The problem, of course, is that current approaches to water treatment cannot remove these chemicals from our drinking water leading many environmental experts to express potential concerns about human health risks to long term exposure.  Scientific American published a Q&A article that cautiously validated many of these concerns and discussed the challenges of removing artificial reproductive hormones from drinking water.

Additionally, there are no simple–or even affordable–solutions for how water treatment plants could rise to this challenge.  In fact, purifying the water supply of these chemicals could prove to be so expensive that Forbes Magazine ran an article in 2012 arguing that Women on Contraceptive Pill Should Pay $1500 a Year More Tax 

Missed Opportunity

When a pope releases a document, inevitably people in every corner pick it apart for how it did or did not treat their pet issue, and readers might well accuse me of doing exactly this, but I would argue that it is a serious missed opportunity for the Church that a Catholic document on the environment would fail to mention a serious environmental issue that the Church is uniquely–and almost singly–positioned to address.  Catholic social teaching is not a collection of random concepts.  It is a whole, a “seamless garment” if you will.  To have not included this insight–even in passing–about the negative impact artificial contraception is having on the environment is to have missed an important chance to emphasize the coherence of the Church’s moral theology as it applies to both personal and environmental morality.

None of this is, of course, to suggest that Pope Francis is soft on the Church’s stand on contraception.  In fact, he is on record as being a strong defender of the Church’s teachings on this issue and has even praised Pope Paul VI’s promulgation of Humanae Vitae as “courageous.”   Nevertheless, despite the fact that Laudato Si is an excellent and inspiring document overall, it it hard to not to argue that Pope Francis, the Church’s first fisher of men, missed the boat at least on this particular point.

The Truth Will Out

Although this issue did not get a mention in Laudato Si, I would encourage my fellow Catholics to take this opportunity  afforded by the incredible press being generated by this document to highlight yet another reason of why the Church has stood fast in its opposition to the Pill.  The more time passes, the more creation bears witness to the prophetic voice of Humane Vitae.  The Pill is bad medicine.  It is bad for women’s health.  It is bad for relationships.  And it is bad for the environment.   To learn more about how the Catholic vision of love can help you live a more passionate marriage AND empower you to save the planet, check out Holy Sex!  The Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving.

The Pope Said WHAT About Marriage?!? Here’s the Surprising Truth About the Catholic Vision of Love.

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

On More2Life Radio, Lisa and I often remind our listeners that “God wants to change the world through your marriage!”  In fact, the other day on the blog, I did a post titled, “Want to bring the world to Christ?  Strengthen Your Marriage!”

Yesterday, in his weekly Wednesday address, Pope Francis took up this very theme…

Pope Francis also reflected on another characteristic of marriage: the choice to “marry in the Lord.” This decision, he said, carries with it a “missionary dimension,” through the willingness to be a channel of God’s grace and blessings for everyone.

Christian spouses are participants in the Church’s mission, the Pope said, insofar as they live for all people, not just for themselves.

Pope Francis challenged the faithful to ask themselves whether they – as believers and pastors – accept the “unbreakable bond” between Christ and the Church, and the history of marriage and family.

“Are we prepared to seriously accept this responsibility, which is that every marriage follows the path of love which Christ has with the Church?” he asked.  READ MORE HERE

As I mentioned in my post the other day on this very topic, one of the most important ways you can evangelize the world is by working on your relationship with each other.

We live in a world where people struggle to believe in the free, total, faithful and fruitful love that the Church tell us is our right; the kind of love that springs from God’s own heart.  They don’t need to be told that such a love exists.  They need to see it in action.  They need to experience it.  That can only happen if we Catholics rediscover the fact that marriage and family life is, in fact, it’s own activity that requires a regular, daily and weekly, investment of time and effort.  A marriage isn’t something we “have.”  It is an activity we do.  And if we aren’t making regular time for working, praying, talking, and playing together everyday then not only are we short-changing ourselves and our spouses of the intimacy we have a God-given right to expect from marriage, we are failing in our mission as married couples to be witnesses to the world that marital love is worth making time for.  And I don’t just mean date nights.  Date nights are fine, but if you aren’t making at least 5-10 minutes a day to do something to work, play, talk, and pray together then date nights are going to be dud nights as you sit there staring at each other wondering what to say because you have no shared married life to speak of.   We can do better.  The Holy Father is challenging us to do better.

What can you do–TODAY–to give your marriage the time and effort it needs to be the kind of relationship God can use to change the world?   For more ideas about what you can do to take up Pope Francis’ call to action, check out these marriage-building resources or contact the Pastoral Solutions Institute to learn more about our tele-counseling practice.  You and your spouse can be the loving witness you were meant to be.

 

Pope Francis and Spanking: 4 Things to Consider

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission

People know that, as a Catholic Parenting author and family therapist, I encourage parents to eschew corporal punishment in favor of more effective methods discipline that are more respectful of the dignity of the parent and the child.   As a result, I’ve been getting emails all week from people about Pope Francis’ recent comments which are being touted in the press as a ringing endorsement of spanking.  Before we all get our wimples in a knot, here are a few things to keep in mind.

1.  What did Pope Francis really say?

As usual, when the press reports that Pope Francis said something, we have to look at the context of what he actually said. With Pope Francis, context is everything.  He tends to not make global pronouncement like St John Paul the Great or Pope Benedict XVI.  He is very much a man who is in the here and now, addressing things in a very off the cuff manner.  He expects his audience make the effort to “get” the context of his comments.  Personally,  I think that’s optimistic, but that’s his style and you can’t understand what he means unless you take his style into account.

If you read the actual address–and I encourage you to do so rather than taking the press’ word for it as it’s short enough–the entire talk is about the importance of present, merciful, loving fathers, who aren’t afraid to involve themselves intimately in their wife and children’s lives, lead their families, and discipline their children with love and firmness in a manner that is respectful of their dignity as persons.  Here are the paragraphs leading up to the bit that’s getting all the press.

The first need, then, is precisely this: that a father be present in the family. That he be close to his wife, to share everything, joy and sorrow, hope and hardship. And that he be close to his children as they grow: when they play and when they strive, when they are carefree and when they are distressed, when they are talkative and when they are silent, when they are daring and when they are afraid, when they take a wrong step and when they find their path again; a father who is always present. To say “present” is not to say “controlling”! Fathers who are too controlling cancel out their children, they don’t let them develop.

The Gospel speaks to us about the exemplarity of the Father who is in Heaven — who alone, Jesus says, can be truly called the “good Father” (cf. Mk 10:18). Everyone knows that extraordinary parable of the “prodigal son”, or better yet of the “merciful father”, which we find in the Gospel of Luke in chapter 15 (cf. 15:11-32). What dignity and what tenderness there is in the expectation of that father, who stands at the door of the house waiting for his son to return! Fathers must be patient. Often there is nothing else to do but wait; pray and wait with patience, gentleness, magnanimity and mercy.

A good father knows how to wait and knows how to forgive from the depths of his heart. Certainly, he also knows how to correct with firmness: he is not a weak father, submissive and sentimental. The father who knows how to correct without humiliating is the one who knows how to protect without sparing himself. 

And then he gives his example.  Personally, I don’t think it’s a great example of what he led up to say, but it’s an example and because I’m one of those people who will make the effort to get the context of his remarks, I take his meaning.  After all, as a public speaker, I too, have offered examples that fell flat or detracted from my actual point.  That said, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that Pope Francis wasn’t really giving a speech about the awesome-y awesomeness of smacking your kids as long as you don’t leave visible marks–that’s COMPLETELY out of character for Pope Francis’ general positions on family life and completely inconsistent with both science and Catholic tradition on this matter (more on this below).  Rather, it is clear from the context of his remarks that he was speaking of the importance of dads not being afraid to step up and be dads; involved, loving, generous, engaged leaders of their families and formators of their children’s character and moral life.

2.  How Was He Speaking?

The second thing to keep in mind is how he was speaking–that is, in what capacity.  When he gave the example of the dad who sometimes has to “strike a child lightly” was he speaking as a theologian?  Well, it would not seem so, because he didn’t cite any scriptures, quotes from Vatican documents, or writings of the saints.  A theologian always builds from tradition.  Pope Francis didn’t do that.  He simply offered an example that he thought people could relate to illustrating the point he was trying to make in the three entire paragraphs before the example–three paragraphs, I might add, no one is talking about because his unfortunate example took center stage.  It happens, but when an example falls flat, which counts more?  The example?  Or the 3 paragraphs before it that carefully lays out everything you really meant?  Call me crazy, but I would go with what’s behind door #2, that is, the latter of the two options.

Well, if he wasn’t speaking as a theologian,  was he speaking as a social scientist?  Again, the answer appears to be “no.”  A social scientist also speaks from precedence–he cites research, he uses data. Pope Francis did none of  this.  So, clearly, he wasn’t intending to put forth some final, Catholic judgment on the raging debate in parenting circles and family psychology on the appropriateness and efficacy of corporal punishment.

So if, in giving this example, he was not speaking as a theologian or a social scientist, then what was he speaking as?  I would suggest that he was speaking as he often does, as a pastor, who was simply trying to illustrate his larger, main point in a way that his audience might relate to.  Again, I personally, think his example failed miserably, but it is a miscalculation that speakers often make.  The paragraphs before the example are really quite beautiful and lay out a powerful vision of fatherhood that does, incidentally, track with both Catholic theological tradition and social science.

3.  Discipline is a Matter of Prudential Judgment.

The third thing to keep in mind is that, for Catholics, parenting and discipline is a matter of prudential judgment.  Pope Francis wouldn’t tell people how to raise their kids because the Church doesn’t do that. it violates subsidiarity.   It’s up to parenting experts to state our case for the positions we take and for parents to listen, pray, and decide what makes the most sense to them.  I, and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in family psychology, make the case that there are much more effective and dignified ways than corporal punishment to correct a child; methods that are also completely consistent with Pope Francis’ message of engaged, effective fatherhood.  That said, the vast majority of parents ignore that advice and still spank in spite of it.  Pope Francis knows this, and so he used an example of someone he felt spanked more mercifully than many other parents to underscore his point and give his message the broadest possible appeal.  Again, I think his example failed to serve his intentions, but that doesn’t change the point of his message; namely, dads should discipline, but only by using means that keep the dignity of the child in mind.  That point is quite clear and literally obvious from everything he says around the example he gave.

4.  What is the Larger Context of This Discussion?

Finally, we need to keep the larger context of this debate in mind.  Catholic theologians always respect the scientific findings that impact a particular subject when attempting to speak to that subject. The Vatican regularly asks scientists of every discipline to consult on various issues it has an interest in.  If Pope Francis were going to make anything more than a colloquial, folksy, comment on corporal punishment, he would need to consult both tradition and social science, both of which weigh very heavily against corporal punishment as an effective, respectful method of discipline.  For instance, here is a summary of the American Psychological Association’s finding on the research about corporal punishment.

Additionally, Pope Francis would need to consult the reflections of those holy men and women who have pronounced on this topic before him.  A while ago I posted an article on what the saints had to say about corporal punishment.  Here are some quotes pulled from that post.

~If thou shouldst see (your son) transgressing this law, punish him, now with a stern look, now with incisive, now with reproachful, words; at other times win him with gentleness and promises.   Have not recourse to blows and accustom him not to be trained by the rod; for if he feel it…, he will learn to despise it. And when he has learnt to despise it, he has reduced thy system to nought.  (St. John Chrysostum)

~The birch is used only out of bad temper and weakness for the birch is a servile punishment which degrades the soul even when it corrects, if it indeed corrects, for its usual effect is to burden (St Jean Baptiste de la Salle, c.f., On the Conduct of Christian Schools)

~Force, indeed, punishes guilt but does not heal the guilty….In the case of some boys, a reproachful look is more effective than a slap in the face would be. Praise of work well done and blame in the case of carelessness are already a great reward or punishment.  A reproachful or severe look often serves as an excellent means of moral restraint over the young. By it the guilty person is moved to consider his own fault, to feel ashamed, and finally to repent and turn over a new leaf.  Never, except in very extreme cases, expose the culprit publicly to shame. Except in very rare cases, corrections and punishments should be given privately and in the absence of companions; and the greatest prudence and patience should be used to bring the pupil to see his fault, with the aid of reason and religion.  To strike a child in any way…must be absolutely avoided…[these punishments] greatly irritate the child and degrade the [parent].  (St. John Bosco)

CONCLUSION

So, yes.  Pope Francis did, indeed, offer an example of parenting that, taken out of the larger context, appears to suggest that corporal punishment is just grand.  Putting it in context, however, it becomes quite clear that his example was just that, an attempt to illustrate a larger point, that unfortunately because of the press’ penchant for sound bites and the volatility of the debate among parents on this topic ended up obliterating the exact point about merciful, loving, engaged fatherhood he was trying to make.

For a thorough perspective on Catholic parenting that takes into account both social science and the fullness of our Catholic tradition, I invite you to pick up a copy of Parenting With Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids and Then Comes Baby:  The Catholic Guide to Surviving and Thriving in the First Three Years of Parenthood.

BIG NEWS! Vatican to Launch New Telecom Company

Vatican Radio. Image Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Vatican Radio. Image Shutterstock. Used with permission.

According to sources, Pope Francis has given the go-ahead for the Vatican to launch an international telecommunications company called Viaticom.  Vatican Press Secretary, Fr.  Thomas Rosica, told reporters that Viaticom will offer Catholics cell service via a Natural Family Plan. People say its great, but you have to agree to not use your phone for 7-10 days every month.

Rimshot!

(Can I tell you how proud I am of myself for this?  HA!  I kill me. Seriously, folks.  I’ll be here all week.  Try the gluten-free hosts and don’t forget to tip the altar-girls.)

Update from the Hutch: Pope Francis Praises Large Families

For all the cyber sturm und drang yesterday surrounding Pope Francis comment that Catholics don’t have to reproduce like rabbits to be faithful to the Church, many people forget that only a couple of short weeks before,

Image credit: Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Image credit: Shutterstock. Used with permission.

(yes, I know, a millennium in the news cycle), at the meeting of the National Association of Large Families, Pope Francis said some very supportive things about parents who are heroically generous in the service of life.

The presence of large families is a hope for society….Dear parents, I am grateful to you for the example of love towards life, that you preserve from conception to natural end, despite all the difficulties and burdens of life, and that unfortunately, the public institutions do not always help you….Therefore, I hope, also thinking of the low birth rate that has long been in Italy, for a greater focus on policy and administrators on a public level, in order to give due support to these families. Each family is a cell of society, but large families are a more rich cell, more vibrant, and the State has an interest in investing in it.  READ THE WHOLE SPEECH HERE.

But…wait!  Pope Francis couldn’t possibly be holding two equally important yet somewhat distinct thoughts in his head at the same exact time, could he?!?  That would be MADNESSS, I tell you!  MADNESS!

Ah, but the Catholic way, young padawan.  The Catholic way that is.

For more information about discerning God’s plan for your family size, check out, Holy Sex!  The Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing,Infallible Loving.