EWTN Sex Counselor and Psychotherapist Outed as a Closet Jansenist?

Catholic Family News ^ | 8/15/2003 | Bridgette O'Donnell

[Diago]

HOME | ABOUT US | PRESS | EVENTS | PEOPLE | ISSUES | NEWSLETTER | CONTACT US | SEARCH
		Is the Popcak Catholic? EWTN Sex Counselor and Psychotherapist Outed as a Closet Jansenist? 8/15/2003 8:25:00 PM By Bridgette O'Donnell - Catholic Family News CCL: Too sexy for their jeans? All the while appealing to Church teaching, contemporary Catholic psychologists constantly seek new ways to integrate their progressive views into Catholic thought. While evangelical psychologists seek to "co-opt psychology for their own purposes, making therapeutic concepts subordinate to the Bible,"[1 ]Catholic psychologists claim that they submit their particular branch of therapeutics[2] to Church teaching. Like the evangelical world-view that "undergoes a particular reworking" once submitted to "Christian" psychology,[3] Catholic Church teaching is similarly modified into the evolving "Catholic" psychological framework. Today, it appears that no contemporary Catholic psychologist makes better or more blatant use of that framework than Gregory Popcak, MSW, LCSW. A rising star among Catholic progressives, Gregory Popcak is a "Catholic" psychotherapist and author who, presenting an amiable facade on Catholic radio and television, reserves blasphemous remarks and scandalous recommendations to the printed word. Popcak, who sports BA degrees in Psychology and Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH and a MA in Social Work from the University of Pittsburgh, claims to assist Catholics in living "dynamic" and "faith-filled lives" by "integrating cutting-edge psychology with orthodox Catholic theology" in the realm of personal, marriage or family problems.[4] Yet one ultimately finds this "psychology/theology" mix means that sex is a frequent theme in Popcak's books. The most obvious example is Popcak's Beyond the Birds and the Bees: The Secrets of Raising Sexually Whole (and Holy!) Kids by Our Sunday Visitor Press (OSVP). Popcak's Pastoral Solutions website advertises the book's "7 principles," with the word "RESPECT" as an acronym. The advertisement concludes, "Using these seven principles, parents can help their children become sexually whole and sexually holy! Using humor and timely examples, author Gregory Popcak enables parents to develop their own understanding of the Catholic vision of love, and he provides practical guidance for having age-appropriate discussions about sexual issues with kids -- from toddlers to teens."[5] (all emphasis mine) Not only does Popcak think that parents must develop their "own" understanding of the "Catholic vision of love," (a play on words, considering OSVP published both Popcak's Beyond the Birds and the Bees and the highly controversial catechetical series, Catholic Vision of Love), it seems he also believes that even toddlers need "sexual guidance". The "Brother" Chart Popcak also advocates that parents should spend quite a few years teaching their teens about Natural Family Planning (NFP) "in preparation for married life". In Beyond the Birds and the Bees, Popcak wrote, "Explain to your sons that as God is giving them the gift of their sexuality, He is asking them to spend the next several years learning how to use that gift properly. Part of that means that if he marries, he will be responsible for working with his wife to determine God's will for their lives, including when to have children and how many children to have. These are decisions that need to be made every month in collaboration with his wife and with prayer. After he is married, part of his responsibility will be to help his wife do something called charting, which means that he will write down the different signs that tell how healthy his wife is and when they could have a baby. I am aware of some families where the brother may chart his sister's temperatures for her, or even some cases where the mother shares her own NFP chart (minus the coitus record, of course) with the intent of acquainting the young men and women of the house with NFP. I also know some families who object to this idea on privacy or modesty grounds."[6] First, Popcak wrongly assumes that the practice of NFP is a natural obligation of marriage. Despite the fact that Popcak's choice of words is misleading -- i.e., NFP does not check for signs of a woman's health but tracks her fertility cycle -- the Church has never officially declared that abstinence from the marital embrace is a constant responsibility for husband and wife. Quite the contrary. Second, the Church has proclaimed and oft repeated that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary end (or ends) of marriage is mutual help and conjugal love (along with alleviation of concupiscence). The secondary ends are essentially subordinated to the primary end.[7] Yet Popcak assumes the first thing a teen needs to know about marriage is how to practice NFP. Far from exhorting parents to "limit family size", Pope Pius XII, in line with traditional papal teaching, encouraged and praised large families: "Now the value of the testimony offered by the parents of large families lies not only in their unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness, but also in their readiness to accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God-their children -- in whatever number it may please Him to send them." Pius XII continues, "In the modern civil world a large family is usually, with good reason, looked upon as evidence of the fact that the Christian faith is being lived up to."[8] Likewise, Pope Pius XI taught the traditional Catholic teaching on the fruitfulness of Catholic Marriage: "Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: 'Increase and multiply, and fill the earth'."[9] Concerning the right use and frequency of marital abstinence, the Church explains: "Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."[10] Traditional Catholic Moral theology explains further that this decision of couples "not to procreate" is only justified through a "moral and physical impossibility of fulfilling this duty".[11] What is a "truly Catholic" approach to marriage preparation? "To the proximate preparation of a good married life belongs very specially the care in choosing a partner; on that depends a great deal whether the forthcoming marriage will be happy or not, since one may be to the other either a great help in leading a Christian life, or, a great danger and hindrance. And so that they may not deplore for the rest of their lives the sorrows arising from an indiscreet marriage, those about to enter into wedlock should carefully deliberate in choosing the person with whom henceforward they must live continually: they should, in so deliberating, keep before their minds the thought first of God and of the true religion of Christ, then of themselves, of their partner, of the children to come, as also of human and civil society, for which wedlock is a fountainhead. Let them diligently pray for divine help, so that they make their choice in accordance with Christian prudence, not indeed led by the blind and unrestrained impulse of lust, nor by any desire of riches or other base influence, but by a true and noble love and by a sincere affection for the future partner; and then let them strive in their married life for those ends for which the State was constituted by God."[12] Compare the above to what Popcak advocates for marriage preparation: "You will have to decide whether having boys record their sister's or mother's temperatures is an option for your family, but as long as the person whose chart it is (the mother or sister) is not terribly opposed to the idea (you really have to respect her opinion on this), I feel favorably toward the idea because it decreases the chances that your young teens will eroticize their sexuality. Treated in this manner, you are more likely to present this kind of information as a literal fact of life as opposed to some glamorous, dangerous, erotic mystery." He concludes, "Whether or not you decide to enlist your pubescent boys in the charting process, they can begin doing the other thing needed for a healthy marital sexuality. They can pray. In fact, your daughters should do this, too."[13] (all emphasis mine) Popcak's Marriage Prep Outline It is clear that the "Popcak preparation for marriage" for teens boils down to just two "things" -- first, learning the "art" of NFP and second, prayer. These two things are suggested with one aim in mind -- so that teens might someday experience a "healthy marital sexuality." As if this is not enough, Popcak's public Internet "blog" further testified to his inherent vulgarity when he wrote, "I am constantly dismayed at the half-a** job the Church does with marriage prep"; declared that marriage is the "sacrament of sexuality" and also revealed that he works with dioceses to introduce his ideas for marital groundwork.[14] How is it that this "Catholic" psychotherapist is freely allowed to promote his subjective opinions as Catholic? Popcak blithely ignores the dangers of these immoral propositions because he ignores human nature's inherited weaknesses, which the Church recognizes as "the effects of original sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and disorderly inclinations".[15] Through Original Sin, mankind lost the preternatural gifts, of which one was the control of the passions by reason alone.[16] "Disorderly inclinations then must be corrected, good tendencies encouraged and regulated from tender childhood, and above all the mind must be enlightened and the will strengthened by supernatural truth and by the means of grace, without which it is impossible to control evil impulses, impossible to attain to the full and complete perfection of education intended by the Church, which Christ has endowed so richly with divine doctrine and with the Sacraments, the efficacious means of grace.[17] The Church Declares the Dangers of Sex Education Popcak proposes demystifying the "facts of life" for teens by teaching them NFP, but the Church declares such a course indefensible: "Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.[18] "Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of mind (Romans 7:23); and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace."[19] The Church also teaches that private instruction still includes precautions. "In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well-known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says: 'Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice'."[20] More than the "Birds and the Bees" To continue examining Beyond the Birds and the Bees' purposely generic appeal, each chapter features a quote with selections from Mother Teresa, Seneca, D.H. Lawrence, Emerson, Dryden, Freud, C.S. Lewis, Roosevelt, Jacques LeClercq, Martin Luther, and the Kama Sutra, a Hindu book graphically portraying various intimate positions. Popcak's Pastoral Solutions Institute website also offers excerpts from his current titles. The Birds and the Bees excerpt, which quotes both the rationalist Goethe and Luther, insists that parents "cannot do it all on their own. We must be willing to accept competent help from qualified resources. This includes reading good books on the subject of sexuality, and being willing to consult with experts in education, psychology, theology, and child development, when the need arises."[21] Again focusing on sex, Popcak prefers the counsel of "experts" to supernatural assistance and infallible Church guidance. On the same site, Popcak's book, For Better … Forever!, A Catholic Guide to Lifelong Marriage, also published by Our Sunday Visitor Press, blatantly advertises chapter titles like "Holy Sex, Batman!" and "Der Intimacy is Good, Jah?" and claims that "Popcak's advice for creating strong, loving marriages is biblically based, while quotes from the likes of Paul Reiser [star of sit-com Mad About You] and Sting [pop music star] give the book a distinctly 90's feel."[22] Obviously not too concerned about Catholic tradition or even a semblance of reticence, Popcak wants his "psychological expertise" to find wide-range appeal, from Bible readers to pop stars' fans. As juvenile as the advertising and featured excerpts may be, the actual content of Popcak's books descend to the outrageously scandalous. While advertising Parenting with Grace: Catholic Parent's® Guide to Raising (Almost) Perfect Kids, the same website asserts, "Now family therapist and parent Gregory Popcak, and Lisa, his wife, reveal the guidance God offers every Catholic parent in a truly Catholic approach to parenthood." (Did God never before reveal His truths before the Popcaks came along?) "We believe that even beyond the obvious essentials of prayers and parish life, Catholic parents really are a different breed of animal." The ad also claims that Parenting with Grace "combines orthodox theology with contemporary psychology". By reading the site's excerpts and comparing and contrasting them to the book, the reader will find the prevailing authority remains "contemporary psychology" (especially with its emphasis on sex), not God's guidance through infallible Church teaching on marriage, parenthood, and education.[23] For example, the Popcak couple credits "co-sleeping" (children sleeping in their parents' bedroom) with empowering parents in seeking "sexual creativity": "When you're a co-sleeping parent, lovemaking is always creative, especially because -- how shall we put this? -- you begin with all the horizontal surfaces (and perhaps a few vertical ones) in your home in a new, much more interesting light. In a sense, you could say that the sexual creativity that results from co-sleeping empowers a couple to make their whole house -- from the stairways to the kitchen counter and everywhere in between -- a sacred space, overflowing with the couple's love for each other." The Popcaks even feel they must employ some vulgar humor concerning a toddler's innocent touching: "But it is up to the parent to gently redirect the child engaged in this (genital) behavior and not come across like the child is engaging in some kind of ritual satanic sacrifice. ('Be gone from my child, demon spirits of masturbation! Be gone I say!')"[24] Where is one to place this kind of "advice" -- in the realm of "orthodox Church theology" or that of "contemporary psychology"? Scripture and the Book of Nature Replace Scripture and Tradition Some Parenting with Grace subtitles are pubescent spin-offs of movies, like "A Close Encounter of the Jesus Kind," or songs "We Get By with a Little Help from 'Mom' " ("Mom" being the Catholic Church).[25] While Popcak and his spouse make a feeble attempt to compare Protestant and Catholic psychology, they claim that Catholic teaching appeals to "two holy books," Scripture and Creation (the "Book of Nature," meaning natural law) instead of Scripture and Tradition. They conclude "Catholics are able to access the fullness of Divine Revelation (emphasis mine) -- not because we're such hot stuff -- but because we are among the few groups of Christians willing to read both 'books'." In this one sentence alone, the Popcaks make two mistakes. By making no attempt to explain that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, they silently pass over the sin of indifferentism, the false belief that all religions are good -- hence, it makes no difference which religion is practiced. Although the Popcaks make a reference to Tradition when they write "while secular parents may also rely on the Book of Nature for parenting hints, they don't have access to Divine Revelation in Scripture or Sacred Tradition, which tell them how to use the information they can from science," it also appears they attempt to Protestantize Catholic teaching. They claim, "Learning about God's creation and using it in the manner God intended is one aspect of what Catholics call 'natural law'," summarizing that "we are obliged to follow the instructions He (God) gives us in the Book of His word and the Book of Nature to bring them [children] up according to His will and purpose."[26] With a bare acknowledgment of Tradition, the proposed foundation of "Catholic teaching" is reduced to Scripture and natural law,[27] which Protestantism would find most agreeable. The Big Bang and God's "Sexuality" Yet Popcak does not limit his sexually "theological" ideas to married couples, babies and teens. In February 2003, an Internet discussion group (in which Lisa Popcak, Greg's wife, participated) brought up valid concerns about Popcak's writings. One of the moderators quoted and questioned various excerpts from Popcak's books, including one from The Exceptional Seven Percent which brings up the blasphemous question (we beg the reader's pardon) of God's "orgasms". Responding through his wife's email address, Greg Popcak attacked those who expressed their alarm with a hostile, pompous harangue. Airily reminding the list of his educational background, Popcak then asked the membership about their own college degrees. Revealing that he and his wife have a "friendly relationship" with Scott and Kimberly Hahn, he immediately added that the Hahns have not yet pronounced he and his wife to be "godless heretics". (The question begs to be asked: Does Popcak think that the Hahns are bestowed with magisterial authority, the same kind that alone can declare what is anathema?) Popcak also insinuated that those who were shocked over his perverse theology might be Jansenists, reminding the list that Jansenism is "still" a heresy.[28] It would seem Jansenism is the agreed-upon "heresy of the year" among neo-Catholics, since it remains their favorite accusation to hurl against fellow Catholics who do not appreciate their novelties. (Jansenism was similar to Calvinism, in that it led to the idea of predestination. However, Popcak seemed to be alluding to the Jansenist emphasis on the human weaknesses due to Original Sin, especially those that affect human reason and the passions.) Interestingly enough, not once did Popcak claim that previously shared excerpts from his books were misquotes. The quote that caused the most shock came from The Exceptional Seven Percent, where Popcak muses over New Age guru Deepak Chopra's question, "Does God have orgasms?" Popcak concluded, "I, like Chopra, believe the answer is 'Absolutely yes.' My own faith tradition teaches that God is a lover and that the cosmological orgasm physicists refer to as the Big Bang … is the model for human sexuality. Who wouldn't give their eyetooth for a night like that with their beloved?"[29] Popcak's claims are nefarious, slyly insinuating profane ideas about the nature and love of the Holy Trinity. Nowhere does the Church teach that the heavens are a "cosmological orgasm" and "the model for human sexuality"; that idea seems to have issued from Popcak's appreciation for New Age gurus. Popcak's book continued with the theme of God's "sexuality," first by quoting the Protestant writer C.S. Lewis on God's reasoning powers and love, and then by adding his own sexual spin to the topic30: "C.S. Lewis once wrote, [God] 'lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another'." Popcak immediately followed, "The same is true of our sexuality. God enjoys his (sic) own 'sexuality' and because he (sic) is generous, he (sic) shares that sexuality with us." "Some of you are probably appalled by what must seem to be a hopeless anthropomorphism on my part. But when I refer to God's 'sexuality' or even God's 'orgasm,' I don't mean it in the physical way we humans understand it. Rather, God's 'sexuality' is expressed in his (sic) joy in loving all things, uniting all things, creating all things. What we mortals refer to as our sexuality is the power God lends us to join him (sic) in loving, uniting and creating both on a physical level (through lovemaking which leads to children) and on a spiritual level (through lovemaking) which strengthens the unity of the couple and actualizes their values, ideals and goals." Since Popcak claims he did not mean God's "sexuality" or "orgasm" as we humans understand the terms, he should have refrained from using those words out of reverence for his Creator. Furthermore, while the marital act, as intended by God, is holy, not all sacred and wholesome love is sexual or should be described with sexual terms. Would one define the love for one's child in like manner? Popcak's way of describing the "powers" of the physical marital union, especially in his blasphemous references to God, is best explained by the document Pascendi Dominici Gregis when it describes the written works of modernists: "Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist."[31] Indeed, while Pascendi defines and condemns the false doctrines of modernism, it also aptly delineates how modernists work. Its first three paragraphs alone aptly outline Popcak's "Catholic" psychology, beginning with the rejection of "profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called," of "men speaking perverse things, vain talkers, erring and driving into error."[32] It continues by alluding "to many who belong to the Catholic laity … thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church … lost to all sense of modesty … [who] assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer" Whom they degrade with "sacrilegious audacity".[33] While reminded that we cannot judge the internal disposition of an individual's soul, Catholics are also taught that modernists reveal themselves by "their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action". They are considered to be "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within ... Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality."[34] The Abstinence to Art Connection Finally, Popcak continues with his theme on married sexuality, claiming that "... creative abstinence is best understood as the conscious effort a couple makes to enflame their desire for one another and enhance their intimacy by taking short breaks (about a week or so) from genital intercourse while at the same time intensifying the amount of nongenital physical contact (for example, kissing, cuddling, making out without going all the way) and other expressions of affection." While Popcak lists three other reasons for "periodic abstinence," he claims that the most important reason for it "is the potential to raise lovemaking to a high art form and means to actualization."[35] Yet the encyclical Sacra Virginitas refutes Popcak's opinion on what is most important about marital abstinence, teaching that it leaves the time "more free for prayer, precisely because [it] gives greater freedom to the soul which wishes to give itself over to spiritual thoughts."[36] Even further, the Church also warns of "some reformers of married life [who] make a pretense of helping those joined in wedlock, laying much stress on physiological [bodily] matters, in which is learned rather the art of sinning in a subtle way than the virtue of living chastely."[37] Regardless of what the Church teaches, Popcak is more concerned about actualization, defined on his website as "every human being's drive to become the most fulfilled and competent person possible. According to psychologist Abraham Maslow, who studied 'self-actualizing people,' these individuals exhibit such qualities as acceptance of themselves and others, spontaneity, creativity, compassion, inner-peace, a healthy sense of humor, and the capacity for extraordinarily deep intimacy. Likewise, 'self-actualizers' are often considered to be living, breathing examples of their own unique value system."[38] Strangely enough, the "seven qualities" of "self-actualizers" appear to have replaced the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost; those gifts are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord. Nor is there a word that indicates a "self-actualizer" looks to Christ as the perfect example of character. A Neo-Catholic Favorite, From EWTN to NACHE Despite blasphemous opinions and his obvious fixation on sex, Popcak, sometimes accompanied by his wife and co-author Lisa, is fast becoming an EWTN favorite. Not only does EWTN sell three of Popcak's current books, it features the Popcak couple on its 13-part cable series on marriage, "For Better ... FOREVER!" In March 2003, EWTN's "Bookmark" gave Popcak a half-hour of air-time to promote both his newest book, God Help Me! This Stress is Driving Me Crazy (Loyola Press), and his alleged expertise as a psychotherapist. Hosting Ave Maria Radio's daily show Heart, Mind, and Strength, Popcak joins the list of other neo-Catholic notables, including Al Kresta, Ralph Martin, Dr. Colleen Mast, and Dr. Ray Guarendi.[39] The Knights of Columbus also endorse Popcak, who has written for their Columbia magazine[40], and sells his books on their website.[41] Furthermore, Popcak is a featured author on the National Resource Center for Catholic Men website, another neo-Catholic 'ministry' organized between 1999-2000.[42] In the event of any missed opportunities to influence the entire Catholic laity, Popcak spoke at the 2002 Couple to Couple League (CCL) Convention[43] as well as the NACHE (National Association of Catholic Home Educators) Convention. This year, NACHE issued both Gregory and Lisa Popcak invitations to speak at the June 27-28, 2003 NACHE Convention in Virginia.[44] The Security of the Catholic Name It is more than unfortunate that Gregory Popcak is promoted as a "Catholic" psychotherapist, granted interviews on any "Catholic" broadcast, publishes "Catholic" books and speaks at any "Catholic" conferences. It is not just unfortunate; it is scandalous and cannot be ignored. Popcak promotes modernist psychology and covers its depravity with a "Catholic cloak". As the Church concisely stated when it described and condemned modernist tactics, "If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake."[45] Footnotes 1. J.D. Hunter, "When Psychotherapy Replaces Religion," The Public Interest, Spring 2000. (http://www.thepublic interest.com/archives/ 2000spring/ article1.html) 2. James J. Walsh, "Psychotherapy," Catholic Encyclopedia, (1911), VII. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ 12549a.htm) 3. Op. cit. 4. Pastoral Solutions Institute website. (www.exceptionalmarriages. com/psi.htm) 5. Ibid. 6. Gregory K. Popcak. Beyond the Birds and the Bees: The Secrets of Raising Sexually Whole (and Holy!) Kids. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2001): 142-143. 7. In 1944 Pope Pius XII's Holy Office forbade Catholics to subscribe to anything but the traditional doctrine on the begetting and education of children as the primary end of marriage. -- "May one subscribe to the opinion of certain modern authors who deny that the principle end of marriage is the begetting and education of children, or who teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary ends, but are equally primary and independent?" The reply was "No. [A response of the Holy Office, A.S.S., 36, 103; April 20, 1944.] 8. Address of Pope Pius XII to the Directors of the Associations for Large Families of Rome and of Italy, January 20, 1958. Quoted from The Pope Speaks Magazine, Spring 1958. (Emphasis added on all Papal quotes.) 9. Casti Canubii, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Christian Marriage, Dec. 31, 1930. 10. Ibid. para. 59. 11.See "Contraception under the Form of Ascetism," Si Si No No English Translation, The Angelus, July, 1998. 12. Casti Cannubi, para. 115. 13. Pastoral Solutions Institute web-site, op. cit. (www.exceptionalmar riages.com/book5.htm) 14. Popcak, Heart, Mind and Strength Weblog, Thursday, August 1, 2002. (www.exceptionalmarriages.com/web log) 15. Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929: para. 58. 16. Rev. Francis J. Connell and others, Baltimore Catechism, (1949), No. 3, Lesson 5, #53. 17. Pope Pius XI, op. cit., para. 59. 18. Pope Pius XI, op. cit., para. 65. 19. Pope Pius XI, op. cit., para. 66. 20. Pope Pius XI, op. cit., para. 67. 21. Pastoral Solutions Institute website, loc. sit. 22. Ibid. 23. Gregory K. and Lisa Popcak, Parenting with Grace: Catholic Parent's® Guide to Raising (Almost) Perfect Kids. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2000): 157. (Note: This book was apparently published in conjunction with OSV's affiliated magazine, Catholic Parent (hence the subtitle, "Catholic Parent's®" with the "R" [Registered] mark, referring to the magazine). This same book, Parenting with Grace, features an "endorsement" by the editor of "Catholic Parent" magazine on the Pastoral Solutions website. 24. Ibid., p. 180. 25. Pastoral Solutions Institute web-site, op. Cit. (www.exceptionalmarriages.com/book3.htm) 26. Ibid. 27. This is not meant to depricate the Church's teaching on Natural Law. We are merely observing Popcak's emphasis on "Scripture and nature" rather thanScripture and tradition". 28. Gregory Popcak, "Popcak Responds: Please Read," CatholicC Mason (at Yahoogroups), February 21, 2003 at 1:48 a.m. 29. Gregory K. Popcak, The Exceptional Seven Percent -- The Nine Secrets of the World's Happiest Couples. (New York: Birch Lane Press, 2002) 30. Ibid. 31. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907: para. 18. 32. Ibid., para. 1. 33. Ibid., para. 2. 34. Ibid., para. 3. 35. Pastoral Solutions Institute web-site, op. Cit. (www.exceptionalmarriages.com/book1.htm) 36. Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, March 2, 1954: para. 38. 37. Pope Pius XI, op. cit., para. 108. 38. Pastoral Solutions Institute web-site, loc sit. 39. Ave Maria Communications. (www.avemariaradio.net/news.html) 40. Columbia: The Online Edition. (www.kofc.org/columbia/june2002/ june2002cover.html) 41. Knights of Columbus website. (www.kofc.org) 42. "Resources," National Resource Center for Catholic Men. (www.nrccm.org) 43. CCL Convention 2002. (www.genesysdigital.com/ccl2002/speakers. html) 44. NACHE. (www.nache.org/2003/ nache2003/schedule.html) 45. Pope St. Pius X, op. cit., para. 4. Reprinted from the July 2003 edition of edition of Catholic Family News, MPO Box 743, Niagara Falls, NY 14302, 905-871-6292, cfnjv@localnet.com

[As you well know...]

Ha Ha Ha...I need no instructions on how to feel old school or old fashinoed. I am proudly "out of touch" with the real world.

I know my strengths (few) and my weaknesses (many) but I spoke with my children about Jesus, the Purpose of Life and objective morality from the get go. But sex? No. I would argue that speaking about sex violates the latency of children. Now, I hope nobody translates that into the idea I favor ignorance. I favor prudence, and modesty above techinical knowledge and I have found a Sensus Catholicus (sp?) serves one far better, at least for me, than technical expertise in matters of sex.

Could I have done better? Sure. But, given my limitations I did the best I could. I have no doubt my kids will be virgins on their wedding day. That confidence absolutely rankles my friends and acquaintances. When my kids are married adults, it is THEIR responsibility, as adults, to know what H.M. Church teaches. If they ask me any questions, I am fully prepared to shudder and say, "Go ask your Mom."

I just have an intuitive sense such matters should be approached very cautiously. Of course, that leaves me open to the criticism there is no siuch thing as Fatherly intuition. C'est la vie.

However, I have run into INCREDIBLY bright folks in here who have far more knowledge than me, so, I am willing to admit I am wrong.

I haven't seen where my approach with my kids has been wrong though.

Thanks for the encouraging word.

[old and tired]

Amen.

[Maximilian]

I'm sorry we're not communicating well.

Actually, it seems that we're communicating better.

It is just information. One can then decide what to do with the information.

I'm troubled by this statement, but I'd have to do some more research and thinking before I could respond. Instinctively, however, my reaction is negative. It seems to me that information is rarely neutral.

If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.

Once again, my instinctive reaction is negative, although I would need to do some thinking and reading before I could respond intelligently. But this sounds wrong. If our goal is total reliance on divine providence, then this seems like an attitude that is just as far away as is the opposite one.

[old and tired]

You make an excellent point that the NFP mentality is often the same as the contracepting mentality.

The one place where I would suspect we might disagree is that I think many (if not most) couples have brief periods in their marriages where another child would cause a tremendous strain. (Think three children under 3 or caring for a dying parent). So, I therefore think it is good people are aware of NFP, but with all the information available on the internet I don't think it's necessary to be ramming it down people's throats as "Catholic Birth Control."

As far as this article goes I didn't get any further than the teenage boy recording his sister's temperature. Yuck! That guy needs his head examined.

[SoothingDave]

It is just information. One can then decide what to do with the information.

I'm troubled by this statement, but I'd have to do some more research and thinking before I could respond. Instinctively, however, my reaction is negative. It seems to me that information is rarely neutral.

The information is "what was your wife's body temperature this morning when she woke up." If you think this information contains some type of bias, I can't imagine what it might be.

If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.

Once again, my instinctive reaction is negative, although I would need to do some thinking and reading before I could respond intelligently. But this sounds wrong. If our goal is total reliance on divine providence, then this seems like an attitude that is just as far away as is the opposite one.

We have other Christian duties besides populating God's Kingdom, right? We should do good works and help the poor, etc. Do you think collecting information and trying to make intelligent decisions on how to help the poor is somehow taking away from our reliance on God's providence?

Should we just flail away blindfolded at whatever we are called to do, because gathering information and making use of it is somehow contrary to God's wishes?

Why is the subject of being open to children different? If we want children why shouldn't we know when would be the best time to attempt to conceive? Why is ignorance a better position?

SD

[Maximilian]

I've been studying personalism as well as the Theology of the Body (and they're two different things) for well over a year

Oh my, that long, really? I will be too intimidated to discuss this topic with someone of your erudition.

You aren't being exactly clear with your use of the word 'overcome' there

Modern philosophies aren't exactly clear either. Ambiguity is one of their prime characteristics. That's why you have to search for the "meaning" of what they're saying.

His Holiness is very attentive to distinguishing between those parts of original innocence towards which we can still strive and those towards which we are not to strive after the Fall

Wrong. Let's take the topic that started this discussion -- the obedience and submission of wives to their husbands. It was a thread on that topic which brought up the issue of Popcak and personalism. The pope makes the egregious argument that Eve was not subject to Adam before the Fall, therefore, if we are striving towards "original innocence," then submission and obedience are not virtues but are effects of original sin. It's hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of the way in which searching for a lost "original innocence" leads precisely to the error which you claim it does not.

The Holy Father does say that he is doing something 'new' in focusing more specifically on the state of original innocence, but he is very attentive to the possible pitfalls of his approach

So we agree that this is not traditional Catholic theology. We can agree that this approach has no basis in tradition or magisterial teaching, or even in the accepted interpretations of Scripture. As to the pitfalls, he is not nearly attentive enough.

For some reason, you're lumping personalism, which is a semi-major 20th century philosophical movement, with some of the theological writings of the current pope.

"For some reason," yes what could it be? Maybe it's because JPII has come right out and said that his approach is "personalism"? Maybe because the week after the release of Humanae Vitae, Cardinal Wojtyla gave a major speech in support of the encyclical praising its new approach which would now be based on "personalism"? Maybe because Pope Paul VI himself said that the new approach represented by Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae was "thoroughly personalistic"? Maybe because every scholar who writes on the subject claims that the pope's "theology of the body" is an example of applied personalism? I wonder if these would be a few reasons to "lump them together"?

While I find your arguments unconvincing, I will not presume to accuse you of ignorance, malice, or copying the methods of Martin Luther. After a whole year of studying personalism, it's clear that at least the "ignorance" epithet would not apply.

[old and tired]

**If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Catholics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.**


I disagree. For most of us, new lives just happened and we didn't need a class to figure it out. I don't mean to be flip. I know, of course, there are plenty of folks with fertility problems and they may want to know all about the wife's cycle, but I don't think the average Catholic guy on the street needs to sit through all that talk of charts, mucus and temperatures unless he and his wife have some grave reason to avoid a pregnancy. Even then, I suspect for most men, the wife's word is good enough.

[SoothingDave]

disagree. For most of us, new lives just happened and we didn't need a class to figure it out. I don't mean to be flip. I know, of course, there are plenty of folks with fertility problems and they may want to know all about the wife's cycle, but I don't think the average Catholic guy on the street needs to sit through all that talk of charts, mucus and temperatures unless he and his wife have some grave reason to avoid a pregnancy.

Is it Ok if the wife learns such things then?

I have tried to show that such knowledge of the workings of the woman can be used legitimately both for helping troubled couples to conceive and for spacing children out for grave reason. So is it OK if the woman at least can be taught this?

(BTW, it is exactly this idea that a man doesn't need to be involved in this type of knowledge that is why some say that "intimicy" increases when couples learn NFP. If a man and wife can't talk about such things with each other, then what happens when there are problems in conceiving?)

SD

[old and tired]

**Is it Ok if the wife learns such things then? **

Of course. Unlike Maximillian I do think many couples experience tough times in their marrriage when NFP is not only permissible but preferred. If our ultimate goal is to get ourselves and our children to heaven then we need to be cognizant when a new child would more than likely bring severe physical, psychological or financial distress to a family.

**some say that "intimacy" increases when couples learn NFP.**

I've heard all the supposed positives of NFP and the non religious benefits of it and to be honest, I've never really put much stock in them. I know I may be in the minority, but I just don't want to know every detail that makes a woman's body bring forth the miracle of life. (This from the man who was finally pressured into a delivery room (for #10) and promptly passed out when things got going).

**what happens when there are problems conceiving?**

As the father of 11 - 9 biological and 2 adopted, I can say almost certainly we would have filled our family with adopted children. Maternal and paternal instincts and love are much stronger than the blood and genes which separate us. Incidentally, I have 3 grandchildren adopted from Korea and the cost is not prohibitive and the babies plentiful.

[pseudo-ignatius]

Oh my, that long, really? I will be too intimidated to discuss this topic with someone of your erudition.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant... my point was not that I am any expert in personalism or the Theology of the Body (which are, again, two different things, even if it is fair to call the Theology of the Body a personalistic theology). Rather, I have been studying them for some time, but I haven't run across any claims that man is, in fact, able to rid himself of concupiscence. I asked for a citation; instead of supplying one, you decided to ridicule me. Perhaps I should be more clear, though; I've studied personalist philosophy a lot more than I've studied the Theology of the Body--this is probably why I reacted as I did to your suggestion that personalism is the Theology of the Body; you said: The promoters of NFP are followers of a new philosophy called personalism, also known primarily by the title of the pope's Wednesday talks back in the early eighties, "Theology of the Body."

Again, I should have been more clear... but when I said you shouldn't lump personalism and the Theology of the Body, I mean that you shouldn't claim that they're the same thing. Personalist philosophy is a movement with a large body of writing that has noting to do with John Paul II's theology.

Modern philosophies aren't exactly clear either. Ambiguity is one of their prime characteristics. That's why you have to search for the "meaning" of what they're saying.

Well, I was more interested in the meaning of what you were saying when you used the word 'overcome.' It was Aristotle, and not Mounier, who said that definition is the beginning of argument.

I said: His Holiness is very attentive to distinguishing between those parts of original innocence towards which we can still strive and those towards which we are not to strive after the Fall. and you said:

Wrong. Let's take the topic that started this discussion -- the obedience and submission of wives to their husbands. It was a thread on that topic which brought up the issue of Popcak and personalism. The pope makes the egregious argument that Eve was not subject to Adam before the Fall, therefore, if we are striving towards "original innocence," then submission and obedience are not virtues but are effects of original sin.

Again, some kind of citation would be nice.. I don't recall at any point the Pope claiming that submission and obedience are not virtues. Again, the emphasis here is that I don't recall any such claim--if you could provide a citation for what you're claiming, I would appreciate it. There are some things which are only virtuous for man in his fallen condition, such as mortification of the flesh--it serves an end that is necessary only because man is afflicted by the wounds of sin. As I understand it, something similar is being claimed in the Pope's thought... the kind of obedience which is proper now is, in fact, proper for man because of his fallen condition. Your example here, at any rate, is not at all a rebuttal of my claim, which is that the Pope is attentive to the difference between those aspects of original innocence towards which we should strive and those towards which we shouldn't--another example of where the Pope clearly says we can't just "go back to the beginning" is the impossibility of returning to original nakedness... one place where I part company with Christopher West is with his notion of "nakedness without shame." The Pope is very clear that shame is an effect of the fall with positive effects, and it is impossible (and wrong) to try and wholly rid ourselves of shame. You simply miss the whole point when you seem to assume that the Pope's theology aims *only* at somehow restoring the state of innocence.

So we agree that this is not traditional Catholic theology. We can agree that this approach has no basis in tradition or magisterial teaching, or even in the accepted interpretations of Scripture.

Nor did the theology of St. Thomas have a clear basis in tradition or magisterial tradition when he was developing it. While many overplay the fact that during Thomas' life there were condemnations of some of his propositions by a bishop, the fact remains that St. Thomas' theology was in fact new and that his interlocutors were many.

While I find your arguments unconvincing, I will not presume to accuse you of ignorance, malice, or copying the methods of Martin Luther. After a whole year of studying personalism, it's clear that at least the "ignorance" epithet would not apply.

If you took my tone to be uncharitable, then I apologize. However, your seeming 1:1 equation of personalism with the Theology of the Body is incorrect, and the only possible motives I could think of were ignorance (you didn't know that personalism is a broader movement) or malice (you are so dismissive of personalism that you lose concern for being accurate in what you say about it). If there is some other reason, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

[Diago]

Here is an interesting update. In response to the recent meeting between the AmChurch bishops and the liberals, Deal Hudson has arranged a meeting between the AmChurch bishops and "conservative" Catholics. Some forty leading "conservative" Catholics have been invited. Leading the way.....GREG POPCAK.

I almost feel sorry for the bishops who may now have to hear about brothers charting their sisters tempatures.

Read about it here:

http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_markshea_archive.html#106140058292213985

Now's your chance to speak (by proxy) with the bishops

Greg Popcak is one of the people that's been invited to the bishop's confab organized by Deal Hudson (you know, the open and above-board one that's not simply The Usual Suspects with the usual AmChurch blahblah). As the token ordinary schlep at the meeting, he wants our ordinary schlep input so he can relay what us ordinary laypeople think and give a slightly different perspective for the bishops than what a gaggle of Fortune 500 Bigwigs think. Now's your chance to speak to the bishops. Go for it.

I think, for starters, he should just read aloud what Amy wrote.
posted by Mark Shea at 10:29 AM

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

unreal.

Now's your chance to speak to the bishops

They can join us here on FR and get an earful of reality. Bet they won't though ;-)

[Diago]

More on the meeting Popcak will be attending:

Conservative Lay Catholics to Hold Summit With Bishops in DC in September
8/20/2003 12:48:00 PM By RACHEL ZOLL - Associated Press

Conservative lay Roman Catholics say they'll gather for an unusual private meeting on the clerical sex abuse crisis and the future of the church that will include at least two top American bishops.

The session follows one in July that conservatives felt was dominated by liberals.


Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington are among those expected to attend the latest summit, set for Sept. 8 in Washington.


Deal Hudson, editor of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis, said Tuesday he was organizing the gathering along with Russell Shaw, a former spokesman for the bishops' conference.


The previous meeting was July 7 at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. It also included McCarrick and Gregory, along with other members of the executive committee of the bishops' conference.


The idea for that event came from Geoffrey Boisi, vice chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and former board chairman of Boston College. Such high-level, closed-door meetings are rarities in the American church, particularly gatherings that are organized by lay people.


Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the bishops' conference, said Gregory would be attending the September meeting "as a diocesan bishop and not in his capacity as conference president."


"Since it is not a conference activity, I am sure other bishops attending would do so with the same understanding," Maniscalco said.


Hudson said about 40 Catholic leaders have been asked to participate.


Among the other lay people Hudson said he invited were Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, an anti-defamation group in New York; and Kate O'Beirne, Washington editor of National Review.


Hudson declined to reveal the location.


Among the topics will be "sexuality, leadership, moral authority and dissent," said Hudson, who described the meeting's theme as "how the leadership of John Paul II points the way toward the future."


"We don't need any creative theologies of structural change to solve the problems that have been exposed by the abuse crisis," Hudson said.

[Diago]

Shouldn't there be a FR representative at this meeting...The nominating process of the chosen freeper should would be fun.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

HAHAHAHA! Yes, that would make for our best thread yet!

[old and tired]

**Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington are among those expected to attend the latest summit, set for Sept. 8 in Washington**

McCarrick is at best a schmoozer. At worst, a homo protector. We briefly lived in the Metuchen diocese when it was formed. A fairly well known homosexual predatory priest was in charge of the CYO at the cathedral parish. McCarrick may not have heard the rumors, but I doubt it.

Wilton Gregory sets off my wife's "gaydar". I have never known her to be proven wrong. I know saying these things are uncharitable, but perhaps if we had all noted the effiminate nature of all the chicken hawking priests all along, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Isn't Deal Hudson the one who denies the whole lavender maffia existence?

[SoothingDave]

You should post this news as a seperat thread in the religion forum. I think it's pretty big news.

SD

[Diago]

You should post this news as a seperat thread in the religion forum. I think it's pretty big news.

Good idea, but i gotta run. Won't be able to post again till morning. Feel free start a seperate thread. thanks, Diago

[JSavonarola]

I guess this would qualify as a defense of Greg Popcak, although a strange and confusing one:

Attack of the Spastic Sphincter People

(you may have to scroll down until you can see the title)

The commentator seems to be from Seattle and has written books about his conversion but it's difficult to tell how seriously he expects to be taken, titling his site "Catholic and Enjoying It!" with the subtitle of Bugs Bunny along with "Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!"

[Domestic Church]

You could also point out that the prevailing NFP attitude (along with the usage of contraception by many Catholics) has completely underminded the American Catholic Family and reinforced the two income small scale family...just as the epa and other population control interests had hoped it would.

Unless one salary is upper middle class it is very difficult to raise a large family now (though the home education community shows it can be done with sacrifice.)

[old and tired]

I checked out the blog. It seems the defense comes down to this: Greg Popcak's a nice guy and his kids seem well adjusted.

Nowhere does he try to explain the whole teenage daughter fertility monitoring thing. I think the whole thing is bizarre. Imagine saying to your teenage daughter, "Your brother says your temperature's normal, honey. I guess you're not fertile. Have fun on your date!" What could the relevance possibly be to a teenager?

We preferred to raise our children with the notion that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and whenever you have sex, married or not, you (or she) could get pregnant. That way we had the dual fears of hell and parenthood working to keep them pure.

[Domestic Church]

"If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing."

Why not just put it in God's hands...His sense of timing is the best though we can't always see that. This is a issue based upon trust in God (versus human ego) and whether you do have the faith to trust. We fool ourselves otherwise.

[old and tired]

**You could also point out that the prevailing NFP attitude (along with the usage of contraception by many Catholics) has completely underminded the American Catholic Family **

I think Maximillian has been saying this all along. In my opinion all those articles about the advantages of NFP just reinforce the idea that NFP equals Catholic Birth Control.

The culture of death prevails in our society. I think the old fashioned notion that any sex act could result in a child cannot be reiterated enough.

[Domestic Church]

" If our ultimate goal is to get ourselves and our children to heaven then we need to be cognizant when a new child would more than likely bring severe physical, psychological or financial distress to a family."

And that severe physical, psychological or financial distress just might be salvific while the ease and comfort might be gloss and glitter leading away from heaven.

[old and tired]

**Why not just put it in God's hands...His sense of timing is the best though we can't always see that. This is a issue based upon trust in God (versus human ego) and whether you do have the faith to trust. We fool ourselves otherwise. **

These words are certainly true, but this is the area I have previously voiced a disagreement with Maximillian. Unless you are living like Mother Teresa there really is no area of your life you are leaving completely up to God.

While raising a family, my wife and I trusted that God would provide and He always did. But that didn't mean that I didn't go to work everyday and my wife didn't look for bargains.

I believe we have an obligation to have as many children as we are capable of getting into heaven. And, as in all things, God has ultimate control. But if there is a period of extreme stress within a family, I believe a couple may prayfully decide not to open themselves intentionally to new life. Which is not to say they are closed to new life. As in all things, God reigns supreme in family size and doesn't give us situations we can't handle.

[JSavonarola]

(Let's try this again - sorry for the duplicate post) I guess this would qualify as a defense of Greg Popcak, although a strange and confusing one:

Attack of the Spastic Sphincter People

The commentator seems to be from Seattle and has written books about his conversion but it's difficult to tell how seriously he expects to be taken, titling his site "Catholic and Enjoying It!" with the subtitle of Bugs Bunny along with "Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!"

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Grace does not eliminate concupisence. We are never free of the effects of original sin until we reach heaven.

The immaculate conception would teach otherwise. Grace can overcome concupiscence if had in an abundant enough quantity. Similarly, in the Catholic Encyclopedia we read about St. Thomas Aquinas

Towards the end of his life, St. Thomas confided to his faithful friend and companion, Reginald of Piperno, the secret of a remarkable favour received at this time. When the temptress had been driven from his chamber, he knelt and most earnestly implored God to grant him integrity of mind and body. He fell into a gentle sleep, and, as he slept, two angels appeared to assure him that his prayer had been heard. They then girded him about with a white girdle, saying: "We gird thee with the girdle of perpetual virginity." And from that day forward he never experienced the slightest motions of concupiscence.

A better question is, how does the selfishness of many NFP users (or worse, the manifest unchasteness of a Greg Popcak) cause a growth in grace?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It is just information. One can then decide what to do with the information.

I'm troubled by this statement, but I'd have to do some more research and thinking before I could respond. Instinctively, however, my reaction is negative. It seems to me that information is rarely neutral.

Information may be morally neutral, but not necessarily what is ordinarily inspired by it in the intellect and will. The disinclination of humans to take on new responsibilities in general lends many to use information to avoid the same, even when they should not. This is why a good commander does not necessarily tell his troops every piece of information that he could, but only what they need to accomplish the goals he has set before them in his mind.

Giving knowledge of the "natural cycles" of her body to a teenag girl with a boyfriend is an open license to sin.

As far as married couples go, modern moral theologians from good grounds have taught that it is the obligation of Catholics to have a minimum of four children if physically possible. Above that is left to free choice depending upon circumstances, provided objective norms are followed. Thus we read in "MORAL THEOLOGY: A Complete Course * Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities * By JOHN A. McHUGH, O.P. And CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P. REVISED AND ENLARGED BY EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P., Vol. 2":

PART II SPECIAL MORAL THEOLOGY (Continued)
THE DUTIES OF MEMBERS OF SOCIETY
Art. 2: THE DUTIES OF MEMBERS of DOMESTIC AND CIVIL SOCIETY ...

2622. Is Birth-Control Ever Lawful? -- (a) If this refers to an * end * (viz., the limitation of the number of children or the spacing of their arrival), it is not unlawful in itself (see 2617) ; and it is sometimes a duty, as when the wife is in very poor health or the family is unable to take care of more.

But in view of the decline and deterioration in populations today, it seems that couples who are able to bring up children well should consider it a duty to the common welfare to have at least four children, and it should be easy for many to have at least a dozen children. The example of those married persons of means who are unable to have a number of children of their own, but who adopt or raise orphaned little ones, is very commendable.

(b) If birth control refers to a * means * of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception. The objection that husbands cannot restrain themselves is really an insult to God's grace and is contradicted by numerous facts. A man of manly character should be ashamed to admit that he is the slave of passion, and the fact that God commands chastity and that millions obey Him both in the wedded and single state is sufficient proof that, even though hard, sexual abstinence is not impossible, if there is a real resolve and the right means are employed, such as rooming apart and concentration on other and higher things.

Continence or abstinence is counselled by the Church should conditions make the conception of children inadvisable. It is counselled, not commanded, since it involves heroic sacrifice which makes it all the more meritorious and praiseworthy: " It is wronging men and women of our times to deem them incapable of continuous heroism. Today, for many reasons -- perhaps with the goad of hard necessity and even sometimes in the service of injustice -- heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent which would have been thought impossible in days gone by. Why then, should this heroism, if the circumstances really demand it, stop at the borders established by the passions and inclinations of nature? The answer is clear. The man who does not want to dominate himself is incapable of so doing. He who believes he can do so, counting merely on his own strength without seeking sincerely and perseveringly help from God, will remain miserably disillusioned" (Pope Pius XII, * Allocution to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives *, Oct. 29, 1951).

Another lawful means of family limitation is "periodic continence" or "rhythm," the deliberate avoidance of conception by restricting intercourse, temporarily or permanently, to the days of natural sterility on the part of the wife. Many of the faithful are under the impression that the system has received the unqualified approval of the Church, that it constitutes a form of "Catholic Birth-Control." This is not completely true.

All theologians agree that the use of marriage during the sterile period is not * per se * illicit. The act is performed in the natural way; nothing has been done positively to avoid conception; and the secondary ends of matrimony, mutual love and the quieting of temptation, have been fostered. "If the carrying out of this theory means nothing more than that the couple, can make use of their matrimonial rights on the days of natural sterility, too, there is nothing against it, for by so doing they neither hinder nor injure in any way the consummation of the natural act and its further natural consequences" (Pope Pius XII, ibid).

"If, however, there is further question -- that is, of permitting the conjugal act on those days exclusively -- then the conduct of the married couple must be examined more closely" (ibid).

The following points summarize papal teaching on this aspect:

1) A premarital agreement to restrict the marital * right * and not merely the * use * to sterile periods, implies an essential defect in matrimonial consent and renders the marriage invalid. 2) The practice is not morally justified simply because the nature of the marital act is not violated and the couple are prepared to accept and rear children born despite their precautions. 3) Serious motives, (medical, eugenic, economic and social), must be present to justify this practice. When present, they can exempt for a long time, perhaps even for the duration of the marriage, from the positive obligations of the married state. 4) The married state imposes on those who perform the marital act the positive obligation of helping to conserve the human race. Accordingly, to make use of the marital act continuously and without serious reason to withdraw from its primary obligation would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life (Ibid).

Pope Pius explicitly confirmed the common teaching of theologians:

1) Rhythm, by mutual consent, for proportionate reasons, and with due safeguards against dangers would be licit. 2) Without a good reason, the practice would involve some degree of culpability. Not expressly confirmed, but simply an expression of common moral principles is the common agreement: 3) That the sin could be mortal by reason of injustice, grave danger of incontinence, serious family discord, etc.

Since the * Allocution *, the more common opinion in this country asserts that the Holy Father taught: 1) that married people who use their marital right have a duty to procreate; 2) that this duty is binding under pain of sin; 3) there are, however, reasons that excuse the couples from this obligation and, should they exist for the whole of married life, the obligation does not bind them at all; 4) the sin does not consist in the exercise of marital rights during the sterile periods; but in abstention from intercourse during the fertile periods precisely to avoid conception, when the couple could have and should have made its positive contribution to society. Sin is present when the practice is unjustifiedly undertaken; 5) the formal malice of illicit periodic continence is not against the sixth commandment; i.e., against the procreation of children or the use of the generative faculty, but against the seventh commandment, i.e., against social justice. The couple is not making its contribution to the common good of society; 6) from 4 and 5 above, it follows that the individual acts of intercourse during a period of unjust practice of rhythm do not constitute numerically distinct sins. Rather, granting the continuance of a single will act to practice rhythm, there is one sin for the whole period of illicit abstention during the fertile periods.

Since the Pope abstained from an explicit statement on the gravity of the sin, the controversy of whether the practice intrinsically is a mortal sin or not continued. The opinion in this country which holds the greatest authority states that mortal sin is involved in the ease of continued practice with a total exclusion of children and frequent use of marital rights during the sterile period.

Diversity of opinion has arisen as to the means of estimating when a serious sin has been committed. Some have used a temporal norm, e.g., unjustified use of rhythm for five or six years would constitute a serious matter. Undoubtedly most of the proponents of this norm would not accuse a couple of certain mortal sin if they already have one or more children; after that, indefinite use of the practice without excusing causes would not be a mortal sin. (This is admitted by most theologians.) Others have proposed a numerical norm as a basis to determine whether or not a couple has made its contribution to the conservation of the race. Concretely the proponents of this theory regard four or five children as sufficient to satisfy the obligation in such a way;

a) that the use of rhythm to limit the family to this number is licit provided the couple is willing and morally able to practice it;

b) that the limitation through rhythm to less than four requires a serious justifying cause. The intention involved to prevent conception would be seriously sinful in itself, since it causes great harm to the common good and involves in practice subordination of the primary to the secondary end or ends of matrimony. At the present time this opinion seems to be more favored in America than the first which places the gravity of the sin in the unjustified practice of rhythm for five years. (For a survey of recent opinion, see * The Conference Bulletin of the Archdiocese of New York *. Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, pp. 36 ff.)

On the other hand, some European theologians have denied that the practice constitutes a mortal sin in itself, independently of circumstances such as injustice and danger of incontinence.

The present state of opinion, then, is definitely undecided and calls for caution both in dealing too severely with penitents or too readily recommending the practice. The response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880, affords a safe guide in practice: "Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."

As to the theological censure to be attached to "rhythm," it is not approved, nor recommended, but seems to be tolerated for sufficiently grave reasons. * "Instead of being freely taught and commended, it is rather to be tolerated as an extreme remedy or means of preventing sin (Official Monitum *, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Sept. 8, 1936, * Conference Bulletin of Archdiocese of New York *, Volume XIV, No. 2, p. 78).

More simply though, if a man and woman do not wish to have a large family, let them defer marriage until after the woman is 30.

[Maximilian]

It seems the defense comes down to this: Greg Popcak's a nice guy and his kids seem well adjusted.

His two kids seem well adjusted. I guess he really IS an expert on NFP. The rest of the defense of Popcak consisted of vulgar and tasteless attacks on traditionalists as persons. Note the difference here. The original article was attacking Popcak for what he wrote in his book. This blogger is attacking traditionalists for being "thin lipped," "pharisees," "lidless eyes." It's nothing but vulgar abuse, some of which I prefer not to repeat.

[Maximilian]

The immaculate conception would teach otherwise. Grace can overcome concupiscence if had in an abundant enough quantity.

I already mentioned the Immaculate Conception. The point there was that Mary was NEVER subject to original sin. She did not overcome its effects in her life.

And from that day forward he never experienced the slightest motions of concupiscence.

This is hagiographic hyperbole. It is also using the term "concupiscence" in the more restricted sense of temptation to the sin of impurity, instead of in the more general sense of all the effects of original sin. It is certainly not true that St. Thomas was freed from the effects of original sin, although it may be true that he was given an extraordinary dispensation from temptation to impurity. And one can also see that his "darkened intellect" must have been enlightened more than nearly any other mortal to live on earth.

A better question is, how does the selfishness of many NFP users (or worse, the manifest unchasteness of a Greg Popcak) cause a growth in grace?

This is hitting the nail on the head.

[Maximilian]

Thanks for the overview from the Dominican work of moral theology.

More simply though, if a man and woman do not wish to have a large family, let them defer marriage until after the woman is 30.

As long as they don't fall into other mortal sins in the meantime. Also, a woman who marries at 30 could easily have 8 - 10 children without extraordinarily close spacing or multiple births. Two families of our acquaintance have had births with mothers aged 47 within the past couple years.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The point there was that Mary was NEVER subject to original sin. She did not overcome its effects in her life.

By being a human being, Blessed Mary was ordaind from tha natural course of things to suffer from the deprivation of grace, which is the stain of original sin. However, she was conceived in grace and integrity by grace of God, and thus preserved from the stain of original sin, and confirmed in grace. This infusion of grace removed the fomes of sin from within her, and allowed the passions to be subject to reason within her.

Christ is a model of life for us, but because He is a divine person, the attainment of His sinlessness is impossible for us. However, Blessed Mary is a human like unto us. Her perfect sanctification shows what is possible if we strive to acquire the grace of God. The concupiscible powers can be fettered by prayer, if God wills it.

Also, Blessed Mary was subject to the penalties of original sin, such as death, sickness, toil in labor, etc. (but NOT pain in childbirth), because these do not incline to sin. For the same reason, Christ assumed these penalties in his human nature, and overcame them with the Cross and Resurrection, thus setting us free of their consequences. This is the lesson of His healing miracles, freeing man of afflictions of the body and demonic possession of the soul.

This is hagiographic hyperbole. It is also using the term "concupiscence" in the more restricted sense of temptation to the sin of impurity, instead of in the more general sense of all the effects of original sin.

On the contrary, concupiscence is the passion regarding the sensitive appetite. By original sin, concupiscence is deprived of government by reason that would order it to moderation in the partaking of what is delectable to the senses, so that it is now contrary to temperance and inclines us towards the sins governed by that virute - lust, gluttony, and drunkenness.

Venerable Bede enunciates four wounds to our nature by original sin: weakness, ignorance, malice and concupiscence. It is no more impossible to overcome concupiscence with the grace of God than it is to overcome the other wounds to our nature. God can make whole that which Adam has undone.

By grace, God bestows a partaking of his nature by a participated likeness, thus deifying us, giving us the light of glory that we might come to see God as He is. This can be had even in this life by a transitory rapturous passion resulting from prayer, such as Sts. Peter and Paul are recorded as having experienced in the Bible, also St. John in the Apocalypse, Sts. Peter, James and John in the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor, and also which many later saints experienced in glorious visions and ecstasies, as did the Prophets in their revelatory experiences recorded in the Old Testament. It is impossible to conceive of these experiences occurring to men under the power of the four wounds of sin.

Jesus commanded us "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." (St. Matthew, 5.48). This is not an unattainable wish accomplished only after death, but a certain reality of the grace of Christ, if we move our will towards it and seek the grace God wishes to bestow upon us with fervent prayer and frequent recourse to the sacraments.

You, Maximilian, yes you, can be a saint, and even in this life. It is NOT hagiographic hyperbole, but an attainable reality.

[Akron Al]

Just back from the blog. The Popcakolitrists were arguing that Popcak did not really endorse brothers charting for sisters based on this quote:

"I am aware of some families where the brother may chart his sister's temperatures for her, or even some cases where the mother shares her own NFP chart (minus the coitus record, of course) with the intent of acquainting the young men and women of the house with NFP. I also know some families who object to this idea on privacy or modesty grounds."


Popcak, it is argued, is merely stating that he is "aware of some families."

But if you go on to read the actual article, Popcak goes on to say:

"You will have to decide whether having boys record their sister's or mother's temperatures is an option for your family, but as long as the person whose chart it is (the mother or sister) is not terribly opposed to the idea (you really have to respect her opinion on this), I feel favorably toward the idea because it decreases the chances that your young teens will eroticize their sexuality."

Here, Popcak is not merely stating that he "is aware of some families" he states point blank "I feel favorably toward the idea."

In the words of Rod Dreher of National Review (a neocon friend of Shea, not a rad trad):

ICK!!!

(see Mark Shea's comment box for Dreher's gem)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

As long as they don't fall into other mortal sins in the meantime.

If a man and a woman cannot control their sensitive appetite before marriage, when its exercise in the sexual function is unlawful and wicked, and before they have experienced its power, they certainly will not be able to do so after marriage, when its misuse is an even graver transgression.

God (and His law) demands that fornicators get married. He demands that adulterers and perverts (and such are married persons who practice the depravity of Sodom and Onan on each other, who doing these things sin even more than the incestuous!) be executed to cleanse society of their wickedness.

Chastity is a vital necessity both before and after marriage, because marriage is not to be taken as a license to vice, but a path to virtue.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Also, a woman who marries at 30 could easily have 8 - 10 children without extraordinarily close spacing or multiple births.

That would be rather exceptional. I was thinking more of Frank Gilbreth's famous quote in "Cheaper by the Dozen" about "Those piddly little families with five or six children."

[Antoninus]

Greg Popcak is one of the people that's been invited to the bishop's confab organized by Deal Hudson (you know, the open and above-board one that's not simply The Usual Suspects with the usual AmChurch blahblah).

Ever since Deal Hudson went after Michael Rose so inexplicably, he's been on my suspect list. I'm beginning to think he's just another covert tool of the commie-lib Catholic ignorancia in the US.

[dangus]

Ya know, like I said, I think Greg believes he is being an orthodox Catholic, trying to bring Catholic doctrine into a crazy world.

Burt I'm sorry, a brother recording tracking his sister's fertility data? Ewww. Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew. EEEWWWWW!!!!

And what really throws me about him is that he just doesn't see it. I mean the Clintonites would be wierded out by that one. It's like the logic in his head is good, but ironically, he's intellectualized it to the point of losing touch with the innate (well,) ICKINESS of it all.

Teaching people to enjoy sex is great... teaching a teenage boy to ... his sist... WHUUAAAUGH!!!

Am I being logical? No... Logic is making consistency out of "givens." This is a given, itself.

[dangus]

"He demands that adulterers and perverts (and such are married persons who practice the depravity of Sodom and Onan on each other, who doing these things sin even more than the incestuous!) be executed to cleanse society of their wickedness. "

God commands onanists to be executed? No, he commands them to repent. Ya know, I know you know that. Just watch the way you word things. I mean, geez.

Now Paul does recommend marriage for those struggling with chastity. And he's not saying that married people don't need chastity... However, there is healing in marriage, and that healing makes chastity more possible, even if the couple know better what they;re missing.

[BlackVeil]

I have always found some aspects of speculative theology to be very un-Scriptural. But this article is more dreadful than even I could think of. Look at this bit:

Some of you are probably appalled by what must seem to be a hopeless anthropomorphism on my part. But when I refer to God's 'sexuality' or even God's 'orgasm,' I don't mean it in the physical way we humans understand it.

Appalled! He has got that right! I think we should all say a prayer, in reparation of this awful blasphemy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You should read patristic commentaries on Onan and Leviticus. His name is not an epithet for nothing.

In Casti Conubii: "Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: 'For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him' (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10)."

In any case, birth control and sodomite acts among the married in ancient times was wrapped up in the term "pharmakeia", which St. Paul and St. John speaks of in diverse places in the New Testmament (Gal. 5.19-21, Rev. 9.21, 21.8), and condemns along with "porneia", etc. The production of such evil potions was a form of idolatry and sacrilege towards marriage, because it rendered what should be a holy act, a man "going into" to his wife, paralleling his "going into" to the Temple (Ex. 28: 29, 35; Lev. 16: 2, 23), a perverse abomination. I think Leviticus 20.6 speaks directly of this:

"The soul that shall go aside after magicians, and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them: I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of its people."

[SoothingDave]

"If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing."

Why not just put it in God's hands...His sense of timing is the best though we can't always see that. This is a issue based upon trust in God (versus human ego) and whether you do have the faith to trust. We fool ourselves otherwise.

Quite simply, not that it's any of your business, my wife and I had difficulty conceiving and used this evil charting and tracking method in order to be aware of the days she was most likely to conceive. Even down to a window of several hours.

I really don't understand this "love of ignorance" some seem to be preaching here.

No, not many couples need to know anything other than "put tab a in slot b" in order to have large families, but I fail to see how knowledge is something to be avoided. To accuse those who need to use this knowledge in order to bear children as somehow not "trusting God" in favor of our "human ego" is reprehensible.

SD

[Domestic Church]

I understand as it took 14 years for us to have our first born. It isn't the use of NFP for conceptive purposes that is under the scope here though, it is the use (under cultural influence) of it for longterm prevention of conception when there is no blatant reason beyond the cultural narcissism.

[Maximilian]

You, Maximilian, yes you, can be a saint, and even in this life.

Thanks for the encouragement. But even if that were to occur, I would still be subject to temptation, weakness, passion, etc.

[Maximilian]

I was thinking more of Frank Gilbreth's famous quote in "Cheaper by the Dozen" about "Those piddly little families with five or six children."

Apparently Steve Martin is making a new movie based on the book.

[SoothingDave]

It isn't the use of NFP for conceptive purposes that is under the scope here though, it is the use (under cultural influence) of it for longterm prevention of conception when there is no blatant reason beyond the cultural narcissism.

I understand the concern with its misuse for a way to "loophole" a contraceptive mentality into Catholicism. But some here seem unable to distinguish what can be useful information from its misuse. Now, I don't think a brother and sister should be sharing this type of "intimacy," but I can imagine where a mother could show her charts to a daughter while explaining what is happening to her "changing body."

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

This is hitting the nail on the head.

How does a hypersexualized sex drive cause grace? I don't see it. Yet the way he is making NFP out, and I've seen it with others as well, is that your whole married life needs to revolve around sex, and that when you can't have sex because of NFP, you should still be touching and each other in other ways (how that is supposed to help you keep chaste during that period, is beyond me).

These people are simply obsessed with sex to the exclusion of all us, making it the be all and end all of everything (which is probably why they get into "God's orgasms" and other blasphemies).

[old and tired]

**These people are simply obsessed with sex to the exclusion of all us, making it the be all and end all of everything (which is probably why they get into "God's orgasms" and other blasphemies). **

I have to admit I wasn't really familiar with the whole NFP cult prior to this thread. They remind me of the Marriage Encounter weirdos of the 70's.

[LJPenney]

Okay--coming from a teenage girl:

Parents need to tell their kids about sex. If they don't, kids are going to get warped views from other places.

HOWEVER:

All information about the maturing woman's body (and the whole "when to tell if you're fertile) should come from the mom. I would never, ever talk about stuff like that with my dad. I think that the "squeamish" feeling that asyouwellknow is feeling is the whole dad/daughter discussion--which would also freak my dad out!

Leave that to the moms. And please, don't tell your kids about your own sex life. Just speak generally. We really, really don't want to know!

~L

[SoothingDave]

All information about the maturing woman's body (and the whole "when to tell if you're fertile) should come from the mom. I would never, ever talk about stuff like that with my dad. I think that the "squeamish" feeling that asyouwellknow is feeling is the whole dad/daughter discussion--which would also freak my dad out!

I agree. But I am not so squeamish about the idea that I would choose to remain ignorant about my wife.

And please, don't tell your kids about your own sex life. Just speak generally. We really, really don't want to know!

I already said as much, as did the author of this strange article. One can discuss the cycle without noting the little happy faces on the charts.

Thanks for your perspective.

SD