Years ago, the Pope established a Birth Control Commission and then rejected its recommendations. While Catholics all over the world divided up into those pro birth control and those agin it, a friend with six children reacted calmly. She said something like this: "What did everyone expect? The Pope had to buy time. The church can't change its position on birth control now. People like me would feel like idiots. Instead of paying attention to our consciences, we did what we were told to do. We used the natural rhythm method and had lots of kids, naturally. In a hundred years, we'll be dead, and the issue will be dead. The whole world will be using birth control methods that work. The Pope will either approve birth control or ignore the issue altogether. What we need now is patience." Yes, we have needed patience, and our recent Popes have needed empathy. They haven't understood how parents feel when overwhelmed by too many children. They've seemed clueless. What if we took away their perks and their money? What if they got salaries which didn't cover their expenses? They could always get second jobs, perhaps as tour guides. Then, we'd give them puppies. When their first puppy was housebroken, we'd give them another, and then another, stopping only when the Popes had six puppies each. The puppies would need obedience training, too. Having a few chores to do would add to the realism. Why not give each Pope a "Vatican Rag" and some stuff to dust?
Other issues are emerging. High on the list is the matter of who can and who can't be ordained. Married men who are Catholic can't be priests. Women, whether married or single, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, can't be priests. Gays and lesbians who are out of their closets can't be priests. About 200 married men who were ministers in other denominations are Catholic priests right now. That doesn't sit well with all the Catholic married men who feel called to the priesthood. Apparently, many switched because they didn't want to be ministers in a denomination that ordained women. Now there are 200 more priests who don't want women to be ordained. That doesn't sit well with the Catholic women who feel called to the priesthood.
A group of Catholic organizations thought it might be healthy to talk about their actual exclusion, not just their feelings of exclusion. They planned a day of study and workshops. Since people stay home if names aren't catchy, they came up with 'Synod' -- 'Claiming our place at the table.' Well, somebody freaked out, and wrote an article that appeared in the Archdiocesan publication, "The Spirit." It is quoted in its entirety in my post, "How did the Archdiocese Find Out?" Forgive me, but that article is weird! I just can't seem to get it out of my mind. In the article, the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis lovingly cautions and warns. By definition, an Archdiocese is a district, an area on the map. Within its boundaries are Catholic churches, schools, hospitals, and a variety of Catholic institutions and organizations. Unlike other districts -- the financial district with its banks, the warehouse district with its warehouses, and the red light district with its red lights, an Archdiocese has a person in charge, an Archbishop. Q. How can a district, an area on a map, caution, warn, or do anything, lovingly or otherwise? A. Financial districts,, warehouse districts, and red light districts can neither act nor feel because they aren't persons. They are unincorporated districts. On the other hand, Archdioceses can both act and feel because they are persons. They are incorporated districts. What a revelation! Now, ever since the days of Harry Truman, the buck has stopped at the desk of the person in charge. The Archdiocese isn't the person in charge. The Archbishop is the person in charge. Q. Why didn't the buck, in this case the responsibility for the loving cautions and warns, stop at the desk of the Archbishop? Why is he letting his underling take the heat? A. The Archbishop has good manners. To say, "I this, I that, and then again I," is rude. He could avoid this problem by using the royal or papal "We," but he isn't a king or a pope. The use of "we" would have been confusing. The writers of the article could be a group with no authority. The Archbishop had to let his underling, the Archdiocese, do the talking, hoping that the article would prevent our talking. Shhh!, Shhh! , and again Shhh!
Perhaps when the Synod takes place, CCCR should lovingly invite the archbishop to sit in. Don't expect him to show up, but with the invitation in place any lovingly criticism would then look a bit shallow. Don't worry though, his toadies will be there taking notes.
ReplyDeleteWhat has always amused (amusing is a cruel word in this case) me about the rhythm method was the matter of intent. If my desire is to have sex and avoid pregnancy, how is the intent any different with the rhythm method from birth control pills? It is as though the Church has said, well if you want to murder someone, depriving them of food and water is the natural and correct method. To use a 357 magnum is a cardinal sin.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I feel that birth control is sinful, quite the opposite. But I do find a bit of a logical flaw in the Church's reasoning. Well actually, there is no flaw. The Church is exerting power over a relationship that it fears, so throw in rules to control this wild power with the added result of the production of many good and new Communicants. Good luck with the Synod. The Church is in much need of change. They need to get their nose out of the bedrooms of the clergy and lay, and quit looking up under cassocks to check on the plumbing of the priests. Women have done much to keep the Church (all denominations) viable, they indeed deserve a place at the table.
BTW, don't give the Pope puppies, let him take care of some of these extra kids that the rhythm method has generated. There is nothing in the dog world that compares to a teenager. Oh let him experience the joys of abundance.