Related Articles

11 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
Fr. Basil said in November 23rd, 2010 at 4:32 pm

I would like to see EXACTLY what His Holiness said IN CONTEXT.

If there is any way the secular media can mess up something about ANYBODY’S church, they will find it.

Joe said in November 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm

How funny it would be for the real Mark Shea to be outed in a similar way here. I bet he’d still run the blog and quote Dreher

Mark Shea said in November 24th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Wow! Klass with a capital KKK, Joe.

Sadly for you, I am contentedly heterosexual. But you certainly outed yourself with that remark. It’s guys like you that are the worst enemy of Pope Benedict’s reforms.

Ned Shanahan said in November 24th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

“If a robber who previously murdered all his victims now turns to merely beating them senseless, that could be a sign that he is experiencing a moral awakening.” This statement does not endorse robbery, murder, or beatings – it is only a statement that the evil doer may be moving in the right direction. Likewise the Holy Father never says that condom use is ever moral – in fact he says the very opposite when asked by the interviewer, and also says such use is also ineffective.

Robert said in November 24th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

The Orthodox Church permits the use of condoms as part of the “Economia” of salvation and no one would question that they are lacking in traditional theological beleifs and theological princpiles. I have no real problem with the RCC relaxing her hard line stance on contraceptives because I know that the vast majority of priest and laity have already done so in their opinions and counsels for nearly the past half century.
The Popes new opinions on condom use are the msot realistic position that a religious leader can take on this subject while still remaning a credible source of authority in todays world. It is now our duty as Catholics to obey these words and work to promote responsible condom use amongst the worlds population.

Jason said in November 25th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Mark Shea can ably defend himself, but I just want to pipe in as someone who loves “traditional” Catholicism and the Tridentine Mass and thinks that your criticism of him as a “neo-Cath” is ridiculous.

Shea is a modern Chesterton and a gift to the Church. Yes, he prefers the novus ordo, but so what? His barbs at traditionalism are at a) a false and gnostic ideology that grips many in the fever swamps, and b) a smug, self-righteousness present among many attached to traditional Catholicism. Those criticisms, in my view, are justified, as long as one does not paint all people who attend the old Mass, or think Vatican II created more problems than it solved.

Anyway, this Trid Mass attendee thinks it a scandal to lump Shea in with the likes of gay, pseudo apologists.

Peter said in November 27th, 2010 at 7:40 am

I have a notion of tradition, Sacred Tradition, in the Church: traditionalism, not so much. However, I doubt that those who love the Old Rite–which includes me–need to fear secular media. They should keep their own interests in view, and ask what they have done, besides attending Mass or Vespers, to support Sacred Tradition. Do they report abuses in liturgy of either form to their pastor, to their bishop? Do they give witness to other Catholics–still sorely ignorant both of the Pope’s express wish for the Tridentine Mass and of that Mass itself–to their own experience of truth and beauty? Do they write letters to the secular and Catholic media praising good and blaming evil? Do they study Latin, Greek, and Hebrew?

As for condoms, here is Cardinal Burke speaking of the Pope as quoted in the book in question:

“What he’s commenting on – in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution – but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that if a person who is given to prostitution at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person – even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable – this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable. The point the Pope is making is about a certain growth in freedom, an overcoming of an enslavement to a sexual activity that is morally repugnant [unacceptable] so that this concern to use a condom in order not to infect a sexual partner could at least be a sign of some moral awakening in the individual, which one hopes would lead the individual to understand that his activity is a trivialization of human sexuality and needs to be changed.”

Clarence LaFuentes Ii said in December 2nd, 2010 at 3:25 pm

To have a marriage there must be life and love, without one or the other you do not have a marriage.
Christian couples are to bring forth children, the concupiscence is secondary.
The children are to be raised as useful citizens and good Christians.
Sex is a privilege of the married.
Teaching persons self control and the reasons why (prevention of getting a venereal disease, or a person who is using them and may even kill them, etc…) they are to go by rules.
“My people perish because of lack of knowledge.”
If a another person could not wait for you, in marriage, or keeps pressuring you; leave them.

Clarence LaFuentes II said in December 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm

My suffix is II. Pray, fast, penance and alms. Rad what St. Daniel said to King Nebuchadenazzar (Ch 3?).

nony said in December 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 pm

Regarding this: “We follow the analysis of the late Prof. Thomas Molnar in viewing Vatican II and its aftermath as, in essence, a process of the subjection of the Church to the modernity and its rulers.”

I have not read Molnar, so I can’t comment on him or his views in particular. However, one had better not dare to say or even imply that the Second Vatican Council was nothing but a subjection to modernity, as though one may reject the Council either in full or in part, or as if it’s ok to disdain the Council or stand in judgment upon it. (We do have some Trad Cafeteria Catholics, you know…)

One either accepts the infallibility of the Church as it applies to ecumenical councils–ALL councils–or one does not. We Catholics, of course, do accept it.

Not accusing anyone, but one should be very precise with one’s language.

Mike said in December 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Truly “My people perish because of lack of knowledge.”

nony, when and where has the Church taught that ecumenical councils are infallible in their teaching? Not every one of the 21 ecumenical council issued creeds, canons and/or definitions of faith. Lateran I and III and Lyons I were all disciplinary, nothing was defined. We know, from the head of the Church itself, three popes, that Vatican II was not an infallible council. It defined nothing. Only where the decrees reiterated previous definitions is there infallibility. We owe Vatican II the assent of conscience that is called “reverential” or “filial” I believe, but not the “assent of Faith.”

It was Pope Benedict himself who said that the decrees of Vatican II must be weighed in the light of tradition and, where found to be seemingly in conflict, then they are to be discarded in favor of what is de fide.

Leave A Reply

 Username (Required)

 Email Address (Remains Private)

 Website (Optional)