Time to Get a Grip
Just to get people's dander up a bit, I'm going to post a comment I made over at Catholic Sensibility this past weekend. Which has turned into a bit of a rant.
The topic of conversation was one that has made it's way about the Catholic blogosphere a number of times in recent years, the "feminization" of the Church.
It is surprising, amusing, and very illuminating in the course of my research to stumble across Popes and other Catholic leaders in the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries complaining about the same things we complain about: "feminization" of the Church or the crisis of priestly vocations; the utter corruption of the culture and of morals, the collapse of the faith in historically Christian Europe, crisis here, crisis there. Crisis, crisis everywhere.
All real and all before the Second Vatican Council was a twinkle in Pope John XXIII's eye.
Is the Pope a prisoner of the French and in exile from Rome? Oh, that's right. Pope Benedict is currently on a highly publicized visit to the Middle East right now and is meeting with Jewish and Muslim religious leaders at the highest levels. He will fly freely to and from Rome on the Vatican's own private jet accompanied by media from all over the world.
Are thousands of priests being executed or exiled? Is the Goddess of Reason being worshipped at Notre Dame? Are vast numbers of hungry children working 12 hour days in inhuman conditions for pennies? Are millions of Europeans dying in the most vicious of religious civil wars? And the galley slaves - how are they faring? Are the vast majority of people illiterate? Is institutionalized racism still the law of the land? Is revolution after revolution convulsing the west?
Yes, abortion was illegal then but many millions of abortions were procured anyway. Because many of the poor didn't bother to get married and the consequences of unwed pregnancy for a woman was unimaginably more severe than today. Think of Fantine, the most tragic character in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. For her crime of being seduced as a young woman and getting pregnant, she loses her minimal factory job and is reduced to selling her hair, her front teeth and finally herself, to try and support her baby and eventually dies of starvation anyway. No Nurturing Network to ensure that she can finish her college education or continue her career while having the baby.
Wait. That's right. Women like Fantine used to receive no education at all.
Life in the good old post-Tridentine, pre-Vatican II days when all the Masses was in Latin and everything was just fine. Compared to the unspeakable horror this weekend of the President speaking to thousands of highly educated and well heeled Notre Dame Catholics who are perfectly free to organize and mount their own well publicized alternate gathering in protest. With no negative consequences at all.
I'm not saying that we don't face real crisis today. We do. I'm not saying that Catholics didn't face real crisis in the past. They did.
What is laughable is our assumption that things used to be so much better in some golden era in the past. That the crisis we face are unprecedented and con only be explained by a spiritual calamity the like of which no generation before us has endured.
We are so pampered. We have got to get a grip. And a brief dip into real history away from hyperbole of St. Blog's is a salutary slap in the face.
Anyway, here's what I wrote over at Catholic Sensibility:
There was tremendous lamenting about the “feminization” of the Church in 19th century France – when all priests and seminarians wore cassocks and Masses were all Latin and all Tridentine all the time.
Part of it was the consequences of the Revolution. 10,000 French and Belgium priests were killed or forced into exile. Liberty, equality, fraternity was inextricably bound up with anti-Catholicism and anti-clericalism in most people’s minds.
The French working class male left the Church after the first French Revolution and never really came back. There was a lot of Catholic renewal and missionary energy – but mostly among the middle classes. And of course, the 19th century was the century of repeated revolution and counter-revolution (France went through 4 such cycles in 80 years) and the constant change in how the Church and State related.
Another factor was that, simultaneously, after 450 years of insisting that true women religious must be enclosed, the Pope issued a ruling in response to a request from the Archbishop of Munich in 1749 which meant that women religious could engage in what we now call “active” work.
This absolutely transformed religious life as women, after the revolution, established dozens of new “active” orders and for the first time in the Church’s history, women religious made up the majority. Catholics tend to think of this state of things as immemorial but it is actually less than 200 years old.
So you have the simultaneous emergence of a whole new, widely accepted role for women in leadership and a large proportion of the male population who associated freedom and dignity with anti-Catholicism and have left the Church as a result.
The two dynamics together resulted in a Church that must indeed have seemed more “feminine” than it had been in the past.
The fascinating thing about all this research is coming across public laments by Pope Pius XII about the “crisis of priestly vocations” in the 1950’s. And to find that seminarian numbers in France dropped 50% between 1905 and 1919. When Church and State were rigorously separated in 1905, seminarians lost some of their distinctive perks. The result: Lots of men chose to do other things.
There apparently have been numerous “vocation crisis” throughout the Church’s history – and the causes are many and none of them that I’ve encountered so far have been liturgical. It varies tremendously from culture to culture and era to era.

36 Comments:
"We do not rest satisfied with the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if in order to hasten its course; or we recall the past, to stop its too rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander in the times which are not ours and do not think of the only one which belongs to us; and so idle are we that we dream of those times which are no more and thoughtlessly overlook that which alone exists. For the present is generally painful to us. We conceal it from our sight, because it troubles us; and, if it be delightful to us, we regret to see it pass away. We try to sustain it by the future and think of arranging matters which are not in our power, for a time which we have no certainty of reaching.
Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present; and if we think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means; the future alone is our end. So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so."
- Blaise Pascal
Jesceczko (or should I say Janice?
(Amazing how all the comments on this blog over the past two years with this tone always come from the DC area. How is that possible? Unless they are all from the same person using different aliases? Hmmm)
Winsome as your questions are, I have to let you know that genuine curiosity or real argument, not hit and run snarkiness, is the key to commenting on this blog.
Since only someone with a profound historical expertise in the history of 17th - 19th century Catholicism would make your sort of comment, I expect nothing less than a cogently argued and fully documented case from you.
Don't hold out on us, J. Stand and deliver.
Unless all you have to deliver is hit and run snarkiness. In which case, don't bother cause future comments of this nature will just be deleted.
Meanwhile back to my books.
There apparently have been numerous “vocation crisis” throughout the Church’s history – and the causes are many and none of them that I’ve encountered so far have been liturgical. It varies tremendously from culture to culture and era to era.
I like your thoughts and reflections. One thing I have found in my reading of Church history is the link of the Church/orders becoming lax in their prayer life and disciplines and the downfall/diminish of vocations (corruption and scandal) I do think it is fair to include the Mass or at some because even the prayers have become lax to a degree.
It has to do with holiness, in my opinion and that does affect the liturgy and the people.
"In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared obtaining an abortion under any cicumstance to be a mortal sin."Just to clarify the above, the Catholic Church has always taught that any direct abortion is gravely sinful. Pope Gregory XIV (d. 1591) enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortion of a "quickened" child, (a child whose movements the mother could feel), but Pope Pius extended (1869) that penalty for all abortions, pre- or post-quickening.
Excerpts from the Catholic Encylopedia article, “Abortion” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
“History contains no mention of (direct) abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations . . . The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. . .
“Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State (Imperial Rome) to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were, if nobles, sent to certain islands, if plebeians, condemned to work in the metal mines. . . The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings . . . (the Christians) appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation . . . The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years . . .
“In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. . .
“The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX Apostolicae Sedis (1869). It decrees excommunication -- that is, deprivation of the Sacraments and of the Prayers of the Church in the case of any of her members, and other privations besides in the case of clergymen -- against all who seek to procure abortion . . .” END EXCEPRTS
Again, Catholics have always understood direct abortion to be a serious offense against God on a par with homicide. After the upheavals of the 16th century, the Church began to impose the penalty of excommunication for this sin (for later term abortions), and in 1869 the penalty was extended to all terms, including the earliest periods. No honest and reasonable assessment of the history of the Church’s position on abortion could possibly interpret the 1869 law as a reversal of some earlier and allegedly more favorable view on this crime.
~~~~
I wasn't implying or saying in the slightest that the 1869 action of Pope Pius IX was "a reversal of same earlier and allegedly more favorable view on this crime." - if that was what you were trying to imply I meant.I wasn't sure, Sherry. Thank you for clarifying.
It's just that the Pope did, in fact, declare it to be a mortal sin, no matter what the circumstances in 1869.
I cannot agree with this statement. This would be like saying "It was in 1869 that the Pope declared that to steal a large sum of money is a grievous sin." The Church has always believed and taught that to steal a large sum is a grievous sin; that the Pope happened to say so in 1869 is not what was significant; he would have said so in 1868, 1867 and 1268, too.
Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi is important in our Catholic understanding of abortion, not because it was then declared a "mortal sin". (It was always a mortal sin). The declaration was about the very serious penalty of excommunication; that abortion is no longer excommunicable during a limited part of the pregnancy, but for the duration of the entire pregnancy.
But the matter in question was were women having millions of abortions before Roe.In pre-Industrial times, children were more welcomed than they are nowadays. You can always use an extra pair of hands on a farm, and, besides, food is easier to come by if you grow your own. Girls of child-bearing age were married off fairly young, and especially so if they should become pregnant. Life was hard and people worked hard, raised "young-uns" and were dead by 40, or earlier.
Not that there was no demand for abortion - there always was - but the demand, I believe, expanded exponentially with the spread of the Industrial Revolution. It may be that such an upsurge in the prevalence of direct abortion, combined with more sophisticated medical knowledge about fetal development formed the impetus for Pope Pius' decision to include even the earliest ones in the excommunication.
Quite good.
Fantine was hardly some pure innocent who was "seduced". She was a wanton hussy who got exactly what she deserved for her fornication.
Besides, if her life was so awful, how did she find time to learn to sing like that?
Thank you Inspector javert, for those words of truth.
Finally, someone dares to state the obvious. You make your bed and you lie in it.
By the way, Inspector, I have a gardener living in my back yard about whom I have my doubts. I'd like you to meet him . . .
Peter:
Your question make we wonder so I did a quick search of our past posts. At least 25 posts refer directly to Satan or the demonic.
But of course, I was focusing on the surface - what can be known from verifiable historical events,
Thanks for the stimulating post Sherry. I read the first half about having a proper historical perspective on things. Very good to note...
I guess because I work full time in evangelization I'm not really surprised by "vocations crises" or "feminization" or other symptomsI think it is fatal to forget that truly entering into the mission ad gentes and disciple-making - is frontlines spiritual warfare.
We are at war. I don't know the last time the reality of Satan was mentioned on this blog... He's happily gone out of style recently.
Blaming one another and being "accusers of the brethren" seem to be much more "in" - in blogosphere.
Several months back I was frustrated by busyness and so many things happening and emails and the like and I turned to my friend who does social outreach and said "what is it? Is it the enemy?" And he quipped:
"There is a confusing and distracting spirit that prevents us from working side-by-side to help those in need."
Let's keep at it brothers and sisters- we've sold our fields for the pearl of great price! Remind yourselves of the great treasure of knowing and living for Jesus Christ! Holy angels and saints pray for us and protect us as we seek to move forward our Master's mission in unity. Amen!
God love you! Thanks for the important work you do.
Anon:
SMICOL (Snort My Irish Cream Out Loud)
You are channeling Ann Coulter, right?
But the word is spelled C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C.
Joye,
Thank you for proving the point. How was my point historically invalid? That's exactly what I was saying. Traditionally, Christianity appeals more to women than it does to Men. If I'm being "sexist" (and what's wrong with that?) It's against men.
There was once a _Crisis_ feature article on this subject: in Eastern Christianity, as in Judaism and Islam, you find the men are more "into" religoin than the women, but, in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, you find the women are more "into" religion.
Men get villified for everything, rightly or wrongly. And any time we express our feelings on this subject in a Catholic forum, a gaggle of women immediately shout us down about how wrong and "sexist" we are.
And the NFP culture and Charismatic Movement have only made it worse. The basic argument for NFP is that "men are pigs, and if you weren't so sex-crazy, you wouldn't complain about NFP."
Or the discussion I had last year with a couple Charismatic women coming out of "retreat" that ended up being about conspiracy theories and how it's a mortal sin not to eat organic food.
Me: "I didn't think our job as Christians was to worry about how long we were going to live. I thought we were supposed to offer up our sufferings."
Charismatic Women: "That's just what men say because they really don't believe in God."
I could waste combox space relaying the rest of the conversation, but I won't. But I eventually explained to them about my Marfan syndrome, how I've prayed for a miraculous cure every day of my life, but I follow the teachings on the Saints on not expecting miracles, but every day of my life is a miracle because I could suffer an aortic dissection at any time, and I've had numerous brushes with death.
But the point is that men are given very little encouragement to be Catholic.
Somehow it lost part of my post. It should read:
Your statement is also inaccurate. Go read your history! At the turn of the century in Europe, people attending Mass were overwhelmingly female. Women have been known for their greater numbers in devotion ever since the very beginning, when only one man, St. John, stuck by Our Lord while he was being crucified, while there were many women weeping and crying. I think a great reason for this is that the Gospel always is heard better by the vulnerable and the afflicted--that's why the poor have traditionally had greater numbers of devoted people as well.
-joye
I apologize if you thought we were playing the ad hominem game. I don't know what Janice you were talking about (were you just intentionally misspelling my name?), but I would be happy to share my name with you in a more personal medium (I could give you my home phone number through e-mail, if that would satisfy you: filologos1@gmail.com). Incidentally, I am male, and this is the first time I have ever posted on your blog.
I am afraid that whatever I write here will not be given a fair hearing, but it would be uncharitable to say nothing, so here goes... If you were writing for publication, I think you should know (or do know) that your broad strokes would be considered more manipulation than synthesis: rhetoric, not history. By that I mean that you are not judging the past synchronically. It is easy (and nothing new) to say that we are materialistically better off than we used to be, and that materialistic standards of living have gotten steadily better since the seventeenth century. That is not what the complaints you mention are ultimately concerned with (and these complaints go back much farther that the seventeenth century, as I'm sure you know; "the good old days" are as old as "The Works and The Days," or as the days themselves). Don't you think you're confounding the preacher's concern for spiritual zeal (which has demonstrably taken a discursive path through history) and the materialist's idea of progress (which, I admit, has taken the path that you attribute to both)?
I would never have pointed this out (I understand what a 'blog' is, I suppose, and what its standards are), except that you are doing something that alienates people whom I think you would like to have on your side, and who would like to be on your side.
I remove my earlier comment with apologies.
You asked:
From where do you get the "millions of abortions were procured" bit?
You mean beside the fact that there have always been millions of unmarried pregnant women and the consequences of being an unwed mother were often draconian in earlier eras? Abortion medicines were openly advertised in the 19th century in the US under the euphemism of "women's regulators".
In France in the early 19th century, it was regarded as the last resort for a woman who was unmarried and pregnant. But in the last half of the 19th centuries, it started to be regarded as a form of birth control for married women.
Abortion before "quickening" was not considered murder in English common law and after 1765 abortion after quickening was no longer considered homicide either - although it was looked down upon socially.
The real restrictions developed in the 19th century.
In the UK, a law passed in 1803 made abortion after quickening a capital crime and abortion before quickening a lesser felony.
Connecticut was the first state to pass a law making inducing a miscarriage a crime in 1821.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX declared obtaining an abortion under any cicumstance to be a mortal sin. Canada made abortion illegal in 1869.
The US made it a crime in 1873 to sell or own abortion related produce or publish information on how to obtain an abortion
Of course, even where it is illegal, women have always been desperate enough to find a way and there has always been someone willing to help - and profit - from their distress. It is estimated that about 150,000 illegal abortions were done in the US every year before Roe.
That's why I love the work of the Nurturing Network so much. In the end, the ultimate decision will be made by the mother legally or illegally. Some women will be deterred by laws, but many will not and there will always be someone to "help".
If we focus on meeting the women's felt needs, the vast majority will not abort, Which has certainly been the experience of the NN.
"Are thousands of priests being executed or exiled?"
In Africa and Asia? Yes. The persecution there is worse than anything Rome ever did.
"Is the Goddess of Reason being worshipped at Notre Dame?"
Basically.
" Are vast numbers of hungry children working 12 hour days in inhuman conditions for pennies?"
Yes, in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
"Are millions of Europeans dying in the most vicious of religious civil wars?"
Not recently; but they were as recently as the early 1990s, and not to mention the "religious" civil wars in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
What worries some of us is precisely not that the Popes are complaining about *new* problems but that the problems Popes complained about in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries have been not eradicated but embraced as "the way things are."
Remember that Jesus says that when there are "wars and rumors of wars," it is "not the time yet." As long as things are *bad*, God's going to keep giving us another chance. It's precisely when people say "peace and security," when they become so comfortable with their earthly lives that they feel they no longer need God, that God needs to intervene in history.
Also, it's very easy for a woman to say "feminization of the Church" isn't a problem. Yes, it's been a problem for centuries, but that doesn't mean it's problem. As my father in law says, "If they ever ordained women, men would stop coming to Church altogether."
I love this post! Great work! I have no doubt that you're going to be further eviscerated, but brave, brave work! I'm definitely subscribing to your feed!
Also, it's very easy for a woman to say "feminization of the Church" isn't a problem. Yes, it's been a problem for centuries, but that doesn't mean it's problem. As my father in law says, "If they ever ordained women, men would stop coming to Church altogether."Wow, sexist much? I'm a woman and strongly against women's ordination (it's impossible to ordain women, so I'm against it in the same way that I'm against the sun coming up in the west!). I cover my hair at Mass, politely refuse to be a reader at the Novus Ordo, and kneel for Communion. So when I say you're being sexist, don't come back and claim I'm a liberal feminazi. You'll fall on your face.
Your statement is also inaccurate. Go read your history! At the turn of the century in Europe, people attending Mass were overwhelmingly female. Women have
Lastly, I was raised Methodist, and our head reverend for much of my childhood? A woman. Yet the pews were, I would guess, about 40% men/boys. Including my own father, who, believe me, was not a pansy-waisted frou-frou pretty boy (or whatever your type would lambast a man who attended such a thing as), but a strong man who engaged in such stereotypical pursuits as watching Nascar, drinking beer, and playing golf.
We don't ordain only men because it would scare away the men in the pews, boo hoo. How pathetic it would be if that were the reason! If women could be ordained and validly consecrate the Eucharist, and men refused to go receive the Body of Christ because they were afraid of catching girl cooties! Ridiculous!
We ordain only men because they act in persona Christi. That's the important reason.
Lord have mercy. People like you are why I have such a problem sharing the good news with my secular female friends. They think that the Church is horribly sexist and women-fearing, women-hating. They would point to your statement and say "See?"
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
J:
I appreciate the fact that you came back to renew the discussion in a civilized and thoughtful way. And I very much appreciate your apology.
Your original comment did sound very much like someone who has haunted this blog and me very publicly with sick assiduousness - under numerous aliases of both genders. And she always comments from your town. Sorry for the misapprehension on my part.
I do write for publication - quite a bit - but this isn't scholarship or even good popular writing. I've done and am doing lots of both. In fact, I've done a good deal of both (in small bits which is all you can do on a blog) on this blog, if you bother to read some of the archives.
This was a rant on a blog. Not a scholarly monograph.
And the work pressure I am under made it impossible for me to do the sort of meticulous, footnoted blogging that I have often done here. Which takes vast amounts of time. I have to save that kind of energy for the graduate classroom at the moment.
A rant on a blog by definition involves broad brush strokes and rhetoric. I couldn't possibly do the topic historical justice in a medium like this. Or in a lifetime of scholarship even if I was an expert in the area.
I wouldn't have bothered except that in the hothouse that is St. Blog's, many Catholics without any kind of historical background are getting their understanding of Christian history and the development of doctrine from nothing but rants. And they believe them. And it poisons their hearts and minds against the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and it makes it literally impossible for them to think with the Church.
For instance, I have never seen anyone around St. Blog's mention the fact that "vocation crisis' after "vocation crisis" had filled the Church's history, for instance.
No - in blogdom, there is only one vocation crisis - ours - and nothing like this has ever happened before and the world and the Church is about to come to an end.
And we know why. And we know who is to blame, Cause it is very, very obvious and very, very simple.
NOT.
For samples of what I do when I have more time, check out my series on St. Thomas More on this blog or link to the 11 part series on Independent Christianity in the link list on the right of this post.
From where do you get the "millions of abortions were procured" bit?
Marion:
I wasn't implying or saying in the slightest that the 1869 action of Pope Pius IX was "a reversal of same earlier and allegedly more favorable view on this crime." - if that was what you were trying to imply I meant.
It's just that the Pope did, in fact, declare it to be a mortal sin, no matter what the circumstances in 1869. (essentially what we would now call an intrinsic evil)
I was surprised myself that it was that recently and wanted to find out under what circumstances he decided to do so since the Church has always considered abortion to be murder so far as I know.
But I didn't have the time to do the research.
For reasons I don't know, both the Church and the secular powers issued new, explicit, and absolute statements about the evil of abortion in the 19th century. Why this was not done earlier, I don't know.
But the matter in question was were women having millions of abortions before Roe. And the fact that, according to Anglo Saxon common law until the 19th century, it was not considered to be murder prior to quickening would certainly be relevant to that question.
With respect to the 1st half of your post: Amen sister!
As Peter mentioned, Satan is on the move. As some wise priest once told me, Satan is always attacking that which is the most holy, most sacred, and most redeeming thing we humans have to bring us into Paradise.
A cursory view of the crises the Church has endured, three things have been attacked over and over again: the Papacy, the Eucharist, and the priesthood. Currently, all three are being attacked, but in subtle ways, most likely to fit our culture and time. The pope is being undermined by those in the Curia, and in the US, "thinkers" like Kmiec and Frs. McBrien and Reese explain away our duty to obey the pope. The present state of liturgy in most parish churches (at least in the US) is abysmal, and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is non-existent in some places. The temptations of the world, coupled with a lack of formation concerning the Sacrifice of Holy Mass turn men away from the priesthood.
While what we are going through is just another crisis, as Christ says, He will come like a theif in the night. Souls are at stake. We can't just write this off as "just another crisis".
you're a disgrace. repent you liberal.
Well I like the post. I don't have the historical background that you do, but I have noted several times in the limited work I've done, the lamentations of popes and saints over the crisis of their time.
Knowing there were crises before our time only makes me assuredly hopeful that things will change, God is in control, there is nothing new under the sun.
God bless you Sherry
Marion:
There was some point for the Pope's 1869 statement. I'm sure it wasn't an empty gesture.
I do think that the industrial revolution did impact the abortion rate. One doctor of the era estimated that in 1870, 1 out of 5 births ended in abortion. At the beginning of the 19th century, it was closer to 1 in 30.
Some other issues which were to the side of this post, though by no means unimportant. Re: abortion (actually the biggest social issue of our time) everyone here knows, I'm sure, that abortion has always been condemned historically by the Church. Even when people have debated "ensoulment" etc, never has there been a time when the Church condoned abortion. Also laws in England during the time you mentioned, Sherry, were not laws in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching, since England was protestant by then.
I do think abortions have generally increased in coutries where artificial contraception has become available and where abortion laws have been relaxed. Abortions have increased in the US then from 150,000 (still very bad) to 1,000,000? Is that right? But I believe NARAL and co have always lied about abortion stats anyway, so who knows?
But Sherry's basic point that abortion has always been a problem (and life has always been hard) is still valid and her central point about the need to evangelise etc remains valid.
Someone else here noted that we need to be serious about the salvation of souls. I agree. I would imagine Sherry does too. I think that's the thrust of her whole post - we need to work - NOW - to bring the Gospel to people.
Excessive looking backwards or forwards is distracting us from acting now.
Sherry, do understand properly your basic message?
Also, I do think "feminisation" in the Church is a real problem. Unless we just don't care about the salvation of 50% of the human population. Women will always tend to be more naturally religious than men. So, the Church does need to be thinking how it can keep the men coming to Mass and becoming disciples. This is not sexist, it's just a fact of life.
The various crises in the Church do need to be faced and dealt with, but the basic rsponse is the same in every era: become saints; make disciples. Pray, fast, give alms.
I enjoyed your rant, Sherry and agree with your basic point: there have always been crises in the Church and the response needs to be the same every time - we need to make disciples.
I would add that in rder to do that, we must first be disciples ourselves and then, really, we need to be saints. Really.
I agree that we have a great deal (unprecidented really) more freedom and opportunity, but as the U.S.Army recruiting campaign put forth "Freedom isn't Free."
Our Priests are not being drawn and quartered, like martyrs, in this country anyway, but the posturing of the current and past presidential administrations, as well as the "formation" of culture in the US and indeed the West point to a direction that is hostile to faith in a God who isn't a creation of MSNBC or Oprah.
The Church was weathered the eras of Henry VIII and the Calles government in Mexico. She has relegated tyrants and dictators to the scrapyard of History but all this was done at a great price. A price paid with the blood of innocents.
I can accept that such is the part and parcel of the Catholic Faith, but it is also a journey I wish to spare my brothers and sisters in Christ if possible, and prayer, fasting, vigilance and holding our government masters accountable are the weapons we have to work with.
The problem is that our executive, legislative and judical branches no longer believe thay can be held accountable (I offer Obama's political appointees, Congress' passing the buck for the current financial disaster, and the SCOTUS's trend to create a nobility of "protected classes" of citizens instead of mandating equality under the law as examples)
This I feel presents a real danger not only to the Church but to liberty.
Look at the films and newsreels from the late 1930's. The technology of the times seems primitive today, but it must have been overwealming to people whom 20years prior were travelling by horse and buggy and lighting homes with kerosene lanterns. The technological advances were touted, much as today, to get people's minds off a bad economic situation. This is much the same situation which sprung the likes of Adloph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Hirohito and Il Duece on a "pretty good" world.
Essentially I agree with you, these are pretty good times compared to what our ancestors had to endure, and the perfect existence is not of this world (nor is it supposed to be) but the same could have been said by the passengers on the Hindenburg or Titanic!
"I do think abortions have generally increased in coutries where artificial contraception has become available and where abortion laws have been relaxed. Abortions have increased in the US then from 150,000 (still very bad) to 1,000,000?"
No, it is 1.3 million per year, done LEGALLY here in the US since 1973, the total is close to 50,000,000 now. A holocoust!!
I'd like to see a source on the ~150,000 before Roe. I think it's a blatent lie, as former abortionist Bernand Natheson would attest to.
John:
You and I both know that the alternate prayer service on Sunday is being held with the permission of the school and if all goes according to the plan, no one is going to get arrested.
To ask for and receive that kind of permission - for students to protest the head of state who is there by invitation - would have been unthinkable in vast periods of the Church's life, including under the reign of most "most Catholic kings" not to mention most Pope's when they were secular rulers.
It is only thinkable in a culture that has a tradition of free speech and peaceful protest and has evolved rules to guide the parties involved. This is new in history, folks.
Can individuals or groups who are planning their own version of "alternate" protest get arrested? With security at its height and the possible safety of the President at stake? You betcha.
Are there groups who are planning and hoping to do things that will get them get arrested? And on CNN? Of course, (Randal Terry, call your office.)
But the fact that you can certainly precipitate arrest if you choose to, doesn't meant that it isn't astonishing in historical terms, to have the right to peacefully and lawfully tell the world that you think the President and the law of the land and the majority of Americans who support that law are doing dreadful things, are officially sponsoring murder.
And then there is the right to blog opening and persistently on this topic without penalty as well.
In historical terms and in terms of many, many places on this planet at this very minute, do we grasp how extraordinary this is?
Close but no cigar.
"...Notre Dame Catholics who are perfectly free to organize and mount thier own well publicized alternate gathering to protest. With no negative consequences at all."
See
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051109.html
Hmmm...rethinking this I feel there is something I've left out that needs saying:
I heartily appreciate the fact that you are telling us to get a grip and stop the hysteria. Hysteria does no good. But are we really that better off as Catholics historically? In Europe, the EU has written the contributions of the Church out of it's history (does this sound slightly like the French Revolution, part deux?)
Clergymen in both Europe and Canada have been prosecuted under hate crimes for preaching the Gospel (retro-Diocletion persecution?)
The Homeland Security Czarina is profiling prolife Catholics as likely terroists, and both the past and current administration see torture as a means to an end (shades of Nazis, Henry VIII, and Joseph Stalin's NKVD all rolled into one!)
His Holiness is ridiculed by the popular media as well as the UN for his stand on morality and there have already been attempts by at least one State government relieve the Church of her property and a Civic declaration by the City of San Francisco declaring the Catholic Church a "hate group" (How uncanny is that? The Masons, Hanseatic League & Know Nothings make for interesting bedfellows)
A few outspoken Priests, Bishops and too many Cathololic Universities have vilified the Magisterium especially since Vatican II has been used by the unscrupulous as an excuse to make the Liturgy a "roll your own" kind of thing(smacks of Heresy, dosen't it?)
OK, theres no blood running down the gutter. No one has been crucified (or even beheaded lately, though terrorist have done so in the recent past and IIRC a convert from Islam was threatened with that fate by an Islamic Court (did I mention that Britain apparently now has Islamic Courts of Law?)
The die has been cast. This isn't a time for hysteria.
But it is time for the Church Militant to get It's act (Our act) together.
JPII wrote that culture is important and Pope Benedict has reaffirmed that. Where is our Catholic Culture in this country?
At one time, not that long ago, Catholics prayed the Angelus three times a day when the church bells pealed at 6:0AM, 12:00AM and 6:00PM.
As a Cub Scout den leader (in a parochial school) I would like to teach this prayer to my Scouts, but some of my Scouts who attend public schools are forbidden by law to pray.
A fine kettle of fish!
P.S.
Let me hasten to apologize to you, Sherry, for my clumsy writing which has even given the impression of implying that you would be in any way "soft on abortion."
Far from it. I know you to a sincere and devout Catholic, and not one who would defend or excuse this most execrable crime against humanity.
Although a number of Americans do, sadly, count themselves as "pro-choice", I am confident that you stand with those of us who want to see the right to life protected for all our citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, who cannot speak for themselves.
Happy Feast of Our Lady of Fatima.
One doctor of the era estimated that in 1870, 1 out of 5 births ended in abortion. At the beginning of the 19th century, it was closer to 1 in 30.About 3% in circa 1800 vs. 20% by 1870. That is a HUGE increase.
A priest friend commented recently that several faithful Catholic couples have expressed real trepidation about the prospect of another child. "We don't know how we will pay for it, Father," they say.
I don't blame such couples for being concerned; I think it's a tough economic situation for families - even in comparatively good times - in suburban, dual-income USA. What kind of society are we, that we make it difficult for young families to welcome more children? The ancient Israelites would have laughed us to scorn.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home