Reflection for July 21

Birth Control and the Catholic Church

(Part I: The 1960s & Vatican II)

Sunday's readings can be found here.

Probably the most controversial moral teaching of the Catholic Church is her disapproval of all forms of artificial birth control.  This week will mark exactly 45 years since the promulgation of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical (letter) Humanæ Vitæ, on the transmission of human life.  Following the Second Vatican Council, this encyclical took a positive yet prophetic tone in treating some of the social changes in the 1960s.  The most notable change in society was the so-called “sexual revolution.”  This “revolution” was really a societal acceptance of licentiousness, and it certainly had a negative impact on Catholics and on other Christians.

The sexual revolution was made possible through the birth control pill (simply called “The Pill”), which became allegedly “safe and effective” in the 1950s.  Subsequently, in the 1960s, society began to rapidly embrace and promote artificial birth control for many reasons.  Some reasons seemed justifiable, for example, for a family to regulate birth rate out of financial necessity.  However, the real reason artificial birth control was promoted was so that people could have sex without “consequences.”  There was no longer need to abstain until marriage; contraception could keep babies out of the picture until the couple was ready.  Or, if two consenting adults wanted to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant, birth control was a sure way of avoiding conception. . . or so it seemed.

All these sexual possibilities opened up in a time when it looked like a lot was changing in the Catholic Church.  With much intrigue and confusion about the teachings of Vatican II, people began to wonder if the Church’s position against artificial birth control would change.  After all, it seemed if we could go from calling Protestants “heretics” to calling them “separated brethren,” couldn’t the Church allow the Pill in some limited instances?  If the Church could change the language of the Mass from Latin to the vernacular, couldn’t the Church see that some couples need the help of contraception to plan their families?  Of course, these are nuances about Vatican II’s developments, yet these were questions that lay persons, priests, theologians, and even bishops were asking in the years leading up to Humanæ Vitæ’s promulgation on July 25, 1968.

Over the next few Sundays, I will continue to explore the significance of Humanæ Vitæ via my bulletin write-ups.  I encourage those of you who may disagree with the Catholic Church — and even those of you who are serious in learning more about this important teaching — to actually read this document (available online; takes max. 30 min. to read).  It is my belief that modern Christianity’s “contraceptive mentality” is the biggest obstacle to overcoming the “culture of death.”  Correct understanding and holy living of God’s gift of sexuality is key to giving credible opposition to abortion, so-called “gay marriage”, and other anti-life practices.  I appreciate your openness to this topic and hope it sheds more light on the challenges we face as Catholic Christians in today’s world.

Reflection on trip to Austin

Pro-Life East Texans

in Austin

Sunday's readings can be found here.

Last Tuesday, I was privileged to join a huge group of East Texan pro-lifers in Austin for the voting on some important state legislation restricting abortion.  Thanks to the efforts of the priests and lay leaders of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Tyler, we were able to send six charter buses full of people to the State Capitol to show our support and pray for these intentions.  House Bill 2 and Senate companion Bill SB1 will provide safety measures for the mother and the baby.  These bills include four reasonable protection requirements: Abortion “clinics” must meet the safety standards of ambulatory surgery centers; It prohibits abortion after 20 weeks because of pain inflicted on babies; It requires the RU-487 abortion pill to be administered following recommendations by FDA standards; It requires that doctors performing abortions have “hospital privileges.”  Even though abortion would still be legal within 20 weeks, this type of restriction would still be a major step in the right direction in the pursuit of the legal guarantee to the right to life.

Rep. Hughes (R-District 5), Rep. Schaefer (R-District 6), and Rep. Simpson (R-District 7) greeted our group of almost 300 persons when we arrived in Austin.  These non-Catholic representatives thanked us for our support and expressed their respect and admiration for the Catholic Church’s consistent pro-life teaching and activism.  Most of our day at the capitol was peaceful, thank God.  There were state troopers from all over Texas who had been called into service at the capitol to keep peace.  I ran into a state trooper who used to work with me at Brookshire’s in Gilmer.  He secretly thanked us for our prayerful and peaceful presence.  I was able to lead a prayer in the rotunda (under the dome) of the capitol and we sang Holy God We Praise Thy Name and Faith of Our Fathers.  (We even sang Amazing Grace for the benefit of our Protestant brothers and sisters who were there with us standing up for life.)

As the day went on, the pro-abortion mob began to arrive and make noise.  I did have a calm conversation with someone from the mob.  It was clear that she had been deeply hurt by men in her life and treated unkindly by pro-life activists, which is unfortunate.  I apologized on behalf of the Pro-Life movement and was at least able to convince her of the evil of abortion in certain cases.  Overall, I was thankful to have had a chance to speak to someone “on the other side” and hopefully give a favorable impression of the Catholic priesthood and the Pro-Life movement.  These are truly historical days in Texas and in America for the cause of the Gospel of Life.  We should give thanks to the Lord for being a part of them!

Reflection for July 7

What is Conscience Anyway?

Sunday's readings can be found here.

        During the “Fortnight for Freedom” and for the last year or so, you have been hearing a lot from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (and from me) about the right to conscience and how this right is being threatened by the insidious HHS contraception mandate.  Yet, there is much confusion these days about what exactly conscience is.  It seems just about any action – good or evil – can be justified using a reference to one’s own conscience.  Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who fall into this category (even worse, some of them are the highest-ranking government officials in our nation).

        So, what is conscience?  Conscience comes from the Latin con “with” + scientia “knowledge”.  It is essentially an awareness of oneself, of others and of God.  Vatican II calls conscience: “[The] most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” (Gaudium et Spes, 16).  Conscience is another quality of man (related to reason) that sets him apart from the other animals.  Usually, though, when we speak of conscience today, we are referring to moral conscience.  The Catechism says that the moral conscience is a practical judgment of reason that enjoins man to do good and avoid evil (CCC 1777).  Moral conscience is not only a gift that we as Catholics and other Christians enjoy; St. Paul teaches that even unbelievers have moral conscience: [The Gentiles] show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them (Romans 2:15).  However, because the unbeliever’s conscience lacks the enlightenment that comes from Divine Law, he is more likely to err in his moral judgments.

        For us as Catholic Christians, we have the obligation to form our conscience through the teachings of Christ and His holy Church, and by prayerful discernment (CCC 1783).  Conscience does not mean: “I form my own opinions on things, and then pick and choose the Church’s teachings I like the most and leave the ones I think are outdated.”  This is called “Cafeteria Catholicism”, which is a joke to anyone serious about living the fullness of the Christian faith.  If I struggle with a particular doctrinal or moral precept, I must continue to try to understand why the Church teaches something — and then prayerfully ask myself the question: “Does the Church need to change or do I need to change?” 

        The correct formation of our conscience is a lifelong commitment because it is intimately connected to our relationship with Christ.  As your priest and shepherd, I will assist with the formation of your conscience through instruction, but it is up to you to pray and meditate on the Scriptures, to take advantage of faith formation opportunities, to examine your conscience daily, and to confess your sins regularly.  These are all ways Jesus continues to abide in us — so that we may not become dead, dry wood, but rather that the Father may be glorified, that we bear much fruit, and that we give awesome witness that we are Jesus’ disciples (see John 15).

Reflection for June 30

The Future of Marriage in America

Sunday's readings can be found here.

This Thursday, we will celebrate 237 years of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as Americans.  Knowing our country’s history, we can honestly admit that these rights have not always been protected for all.  For example, it took time for these rights to be fully granted to African-Americans and women.  Although great progress of liberty has been made with these groups, we have regressed as a nation in regard to the most fundamental rights of humanity at large.  Sadly, in modern times the Supreme Court charged with the ultimate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has been the chief instigator – the worst kind of legislator – of immorality in our country.  Could the Founding Fathers ever imagine that the Supreme Court would ever rule in favor of allowing women to kill their unborn children in 1973?  Could they have ever imagined that the Court in June 2012 would fail to overturn a “healthcare” plan that forces employers and individuals to directly fund abortion?  And more recently, could the Fathers have ever imagined that this Court would dodge the definition of marriage on June 26, 2013?  Yet these shocking decisions have been made!

Last Wednesday was described as “a tragic day for marriage and our nation” by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.  The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California.  The Court avoided the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional.  Even though the people of California voted to protect marriage (which is surprising but true!), reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law.  The good news is that the Supreme Court did NOT create a constitutional right to so-called “same-sex marriage.”  States like Texas that have protected marriage and other states that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped.  Therefore, we thank God that “same-sex marriage” advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a Roe v. Wade for “same-sex marriage.”

Nevertheless, I personally believe this is still a watershed moment for the future of traditional marriage in the U.S.  It is alarming that the Administration applauded this decision and has repeatedly expressed support for “same-sex marriage.”  Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) with the support of other congressmen is introducing Marriage Protection Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  As faithful Catholics and as Americans concerned about the future of our great nation, we must support these legislative efforts.  In the near future, I will elaborate on why “same-sex marriage” is bad for America and why traditional marriage should be protected.  The USCCB has put the reasoning in a concise way: “When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to ‘the beginning’ of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19).  In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand.  The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.”