Learning My Catholic Faith: Thoughts, Research, Documents

The info on this blog is Public. . But I use this blog as my personal library or file dedicated to exploring and learning my. faith. Anything that I want to save pertaining to ' all things Catholic'. will be found here.. It contains,Church documents, catechisms, pages or articles from Catholic sites: Catholic bloggers ,forums, news, apologetics, videos(link always included).There may even be a post that I have written myself but that does not happen very often...

Friday, October 31, 2014

Cardinal Burke: ‘I’m Praying Very Fervently That This Coming Year This Confusion Will Stop’ | CNS News

Cardinal Burke: ‘I’m Praying Very Fervently That This Coming Year This Confusion Will Stop’ | CNS News

Cardinal Burke: ‘I’m Praying Very Fervently That This Coming Year This Confusion Will Stop’

October 30, 2014 - 12:12 PM


By Terence P. Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey RSS
 

 
 
Cardinal Raymond Burke
Cardinal Raymond Burke (AP Photo/Riccardo De Luca)
(CNSNews.com) - Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Prefect of the Sacred Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of the Catholic Church, said in an interview with CNSNews.com recorded Friday that he sees “a very serious responsibility to try to correct as quickly and as effectively as possible the scandal caused by the midterm report” that was published during the synod of bishops discussing the family that met in Rome earlier this month.
In the interview, Burke discussed Catholic teaching on marriage, homosexuality and the rights of children.
“We have to recognize that if we don’t get it right about marriage--in other words, if we’re not faithful to the word of Christ, to the truth which Christ announced to us about marriage--in the church, I don’t know how people can trust us with regard to teaching the truth of the faith in any other matter,” Burke said.
“We’re talking here about the very foundation of the life of the church, the first cell of our life, in the marital union and the formation of the family,” he said, “and if we don’t uphold the sanctity of the marital bond we have really not only abandoned the Catholic faith but really abandoned the Christian faith in the sense that we are abandoning the natural law itself.”
At the end of the interview, Cardinal Burke said that the church needs to once again clearly proclaim its teachings on marriage and sexuality and noted that it has already produced many texts explaining these teachings.
“The church must now in this period hold up the beauty, the splendor, of this teaching for the sake of her own members that they not be confused about the truth but also for the sake of our world and the church’s call to serve the world by proclaiming the truth and by giving witness to it,” he said.
“And, so, I’m praying very fervently that this coming year that this confusion will stop and instead that there will begin to be a strong emphasis on the beauty of the truth of the church’s teaching on marriage and on human life and human sexuality,” he said.
Here is a complete recording and transcript of CNSNews.com’s interview with Cardinal Burke:


Terence P. Jeffrey: Hi. Welcome to this edition of Online with Terry Jeffrey. Our guest today is Cardinal Raymond Burke, a native of Wisconsin.
He earned both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in philosophy from the Catholic University of America. He then earned a master’s degree in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and then a doctorate in canon law from that university. In 1975, Pope Paul VI ordained Cardinal Burke a priest in a ceremony at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. He’s been the bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and the Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri.
In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI named him Prefect for the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church.
In 2009, Pope Benedict assigned Burke to membership in the Congregation for Bishops, the group that oversees the appointment of bishops.
In 2010, Pope Benedict elevated Burke to cardinal.
Remaining in the Truth of Christ
Cardinal Burke is now a contributor to a book published by Ignatius Press: Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church. The book rebuts some of the ideas being advanced by Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany in regard to marriage and divorce. Some have been trying to advance Kasper’s ideas in the Extraordinary Synod of the Bishops that focuses on the family that has been called by Pope Francis.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, Remaining in the Truth of Christ includes an early chapter analyzing the scriptural basis of marriage that was written by Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J. Let me give you a couple of biblical quotes taken from the New American Bible as posted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops.
Genesis 2:24 says: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body."
Mark Chapter 10 says: “The Pharisees approached and asked, ‘Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?’ They were testing him.
“He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
"They replied, ‘Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.’
“But Jesus told them, ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.’
“In the house, the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’”
Jeffrey: I want to ask you, Your Eminence, a very basic question. Was Jesus right about marriage?
Cardinal Burke: Absolutely. His saving mission to restore us to communion with God the Father--that communion which had been broken by the sin of Adam and Eve--had as one of its fundamental aspects the restoration of the truth of marriage and the fidelity to that truth in the life of a husband and a wife. And so Our Lord in His teaching makes reference to creation itself, in other words to that order which God has placed in the world and in the human heart by which a man and a woman are attracted to one another to form a lifelong, faithful and procreative union, that Our Lord makes it very clear that this is the truth about marriage, that there is no other truth about marriage, that that is the whole truth.
And it was so clear that the disciples questioned him about it because they were struck. They said: Well, maybe it’s better not to marry. And Our Lord makes it clear that God the Father gives the grace to those who are called to marriage to live this wonderful sacrament and to live this mystery which reflects in a very particular way the love within the Trinity, which is also faithful, enduring, and fruitful. So, we see that in Our Lord’s saving work that one of the most important aspects was to restore marriage to its truth.
Jeffrey: Given that it was Jesus Christ Himself who taught us what marriage is, can any priest or bishop overrule or change what Jesus declared about marriage?
Cardinal Burke: No, absolutely not. The priests and bishops are called to be faithful to the truth. Our office is to teach this truth and to assist the faithful to live it, but we can never even under some supposed pastoral approach either alter or deny the truth about marriage.
Jeffrey: Can the Pope himself change the nature of marriage given what Christ said?
Cardinal Burke: No, it’s not within his power, and this is very clear in the teaching of the church that if a marriage has been validly celebrated and consummated it cannot be separated. It cannot be ended by anything except death itself.
Jeffrey: And the institution of marriage and the way it’s recognized by the church can that be changed by any bishop or any pope?
Cardinal Burke: No. No, because the church in this matter is following both the natural law and the divinely revealed law. As you’ve pointed out, these words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and there’s no respectable scriptural scholar who questions that these are the very words of Our Lord and the text of the scripture makes clear that what Our Lord seems to be saying, indeed He was saying because his own disciples recognized that this was a hard thing, that this was a calling of the married to an heroic way of life, but a life true to their calling.
Jeffrey: It may have been an inconvenient truth, but it was the truth.
Cardinal Burke: Exactly.

Jeffrey: Your Eminence in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as posted on the website of the Vatican there’s a section that’s called “To Bear Witness to the Truth.” And it says this, it says: “Before Pilate, Christ proclaims that He ‘has come into the world to bear witness to the truth.’ The Christian is not to ‘be ashamed then of testifying to Our Lord.’ And it goes on to say, “The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known."
Now, it seems to me that one historical-- the Catechism goes on to say that we’ve seen martyrs who throughout the history of the church have given up their lives because they bore witness to the truth, when it was not just inconvenient but deadly for them to do so.

St. John Fisher
Portrait of St. John Fisher at Trinity College, Cambridge University
And one example is Saint John Fisher who was an English bishop in the 16th century in the time of King Henry VIII. King Henry VIII, his wife Catherine of Aragon had not borne him a surviving male heir so he wanted to set her aside, divorce her, and marry Ann Boleyn. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes what Saint John Fisher did as follows. They say: “When the question of Henry’s divorce from Queen Catherine arose Fisher became the queen’s chief supporter and most trusted counselor. In this capacity he appeared on the Queen’s behalf in the legate’s court where he startled his hearers by the directness of his language and most of all by declaring that, like Saint John the Baptist, he was ready to die on behalf of the indissolubility of marriage."
Henry VIII went on to sever himself from the Catholic Church and declare himself the supreme authority over the Church of England which Saint John Fisher refused to recognize and was therefore martyred by Henry VIII.
Did Cardinal Fisher do the right thing by saying he would stand on his life in defense of the indissolubility of marriage?
Cardinal Burke: Absolutely. No priest, no bishop, and no Roman pontiff could do less. In other words, to betray the indissolubility of marriage which King Henry VIII was asking him to do would have been to betray his Catholic faith and he could not do that and Our Lord gave him the grace to be a martyr. He even made reference to Saint John the Baptist, who during Jesus’ own public ministry gave this heroic witness to the indissolubility of marriage by making clear to Herod that he was living in public and grave sin by living as a husband with his own brother’s wife who obviously was bound to marriage to his brother.
Jeffrey: Should Cardinal Fisher be a model to Catholic priests and laymen today?
Cardinal Burke: Well, he certainly is for me. From the time I became a bishop, I have given special study to his life. But he’s a model for all priests and bishops and the lay faithful. Of course, as you know, Saint Thomas More, a laymen, a married man, was one with him in the martyrdom because he too refused to support Henry VIII in his pretense to be the supreme head of the church in order to give himself the license to “marry” someone in quotation marks when he was already married to Catherine of Aragon.
Jeffrey: You know, Your Eminence, about fifty years or so ago Hollywood actually made a movie about Saint Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons, that depicted what happened to Saint Thomas More and held him up as a great cultural hero. And I think in those days--we’re talking about the 1960s in the United States--the idea that a person might have to sacrifice their life in Western Civilization because they stood up against the authority of the state in defending the institution of marriage and the moral authority of the church seemed shocking. Does it seem so shocking today?
Cardinal Burke: No, it doesn’t and that’s how far, in a short period of time, how much we have descended and gone away from the truth of our faith and the truth of the moral law in society in general. But the fact that these kinds of questions are being seriously discussed in the church should shock us all and awaken us to the need today to give an heroic witness to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage from attacks from within the church herself.
Jeffrey: From within the church itself. As you know, many of the bishops in England did not stand with Saint John Fisher. They went with the king.
Cardinal Burke: No, the majority did. In fact, Fisher was the only bishop. Now, later there were many who gave heroic witness and lay faithful and priests and so forth. But at that time Fisher stood pretty much alone.
Jeffrey: Do you think there’s a threat or a risk that in the near future the Catholic Church may face another such situation even in Western nations, where some leaders of the Church, some bishops, decide to side with Caesar rather than with God? Take the side against the truth of the Church? Is there a risk of that?
Cardinal Burke: I think that’s a real challenge today and perhaps not coming from the state so much as from the culture in general, the general acceptance, the widespread acceptance of divorce and remarriage, and now the Catholic Church which is practically the only institution which stands for the truth about marriage, for the indissolubility of marriage, now she’s asked to compromise herself in this matter.
And, so, we have to recognize that if we don’t get it right about marriage--in other words, if we’re not faithful to the word of Christ, to the truth which Christ announced to us about marriage--in the church, I don’t know how people can trust us with regard to teaching the truth of the faith in any other matter. I mean, we’re talking here about the very foundation of the life of the church, the first cell of our life, in the marital union and the formation of the family; and if we don’t uphold the sanctity of the marital bond we have really not only abandoned the Catholic faith but really abandoned the Christian faith in the sense that we are abandoning the natural law itself.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, let me ask you in relation to this about another aspect of the Catechism, which calls for respect for the souls of others and talks about the sin of scandal.
It says: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity, he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees on this account: He likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. … Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.”
Do you think that some of the bishop who were participating in the synod and were pushing the Catholic Church away from Christ’s teaching on marriage were at risk of committing scandal?
Cardinal Burke: Well, certainly it happened with the publication of the midterm report from the synod. A scandal was caused in the church. The secular media, not without reason, referred to it as an earthquake in the church. While some bishops and others excused it saying well this wasn’t a doctrinal statement, it was just a report of what was being discussed in the synod, the very fact that these matters were being discussed and questioned by the presidents of the conferences of bishops, by the heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and by other special appointees of the Holy Father to the synod caused a tremendous confusion and could even induce the faithful into error with regard to the teaching about marriage and other teachings.
And so to me this was a very serious responsibility to try to correct as quickly and as effectively as possible the scandal caused by the midterm report.
I remember one bishop in our small group, we met then right after the reading of the midterm report and he said: “How can I go home to my people carrying this message to them?”
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, let me be specific on part of that. In the midterm report--the initial text that was released--it had a section called “Positive Aspects of Civil Unions and Cohabitation.” It said: “A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.”
Was that specific statement scandalous?
Cardinal Burke: I believe that it was because how can you say that there are positive elements in an act which is gravely sinful, namely to engage in the marriage act when you’re not married?
There can’t be any positive element to that. It’s against the divine, natural and revealed law. Simply, our only response--while we love the sinner, as we’ve always said we love the sinner and hate the sin—but we need to draw the person in the sin away from the sin and to a conversion of life. But to tell them that there are positive elements in the way they’re living, this is simply, it’s a contradiction. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s either gravely sinful or it’s not. I mean, this is the principle of non-contradiction. It’s fundamental logic.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, inside the synod when the bishops and cardinals were discussing what would be said and how the church ought to deal with these things, were there actually cardinals and bishops arguing for this position that the church ought to say that cohabitation has positive aspects? Were there in fact people standing up and saying this is the way the church should go?
Cardinal Burke: Well, the fact that it was declared in the midterm report means that there, at least one person, the person who wrote that text, was holding that position and the person who wrote the text must have thought that he was expressing the thinking of other cardinals and bishops. For my own part, I don’t even like to think that there were any significant number of cardinals or bishops who actually subscribe to that thinking.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, my sense, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, from reading statements of the church from encyclical letters to any other type of formal document, pastoral letters, that have been published by previous popes and by the church that they are extremely carefully thought through and well-vetted documents that stand the test of time but more importantly they’re clearly rooted in the scripture and the inalterable teachings of the church. Am I right about that?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, absolutely. In fact, when an objection was raised to the publication of the midterm report after it was heard, the response was: Well, we’ve always published the midterm report. And my response to that was: Yes, I’ve taken part I think in four or five synods of bishops, and those midterm reports were always thoroughly rooted in the sacred scriptures and in the constant teaching of the church and, therefore, I was pleased that they were published to give a correct expression of what the synod was trying to do. But I viewed this document as--it was not grounded in the sacred scriptures and certainly not grounded in the constant teaching of the church. And in the small groups what happened was there was a very hardworking effort to try to bring the Magisterium--for instance in the exhortation of St. John Paul II’s, Familiaris Consortio--to bring that into the text in order to correct it.
Jeffrey: How was that stopped? How was it possible for a document like this that so clearly seems to contradict or bring into question inalterable teachings of the Catholic Church, how did it happen that that was produced and even posted by the Vatican?
Cardinal Burke: I don’t know how to explain that to you. I’m being very sincere. It sent me into a state of shock to be honest with you. And the Relator General, who is a cardinal whom I’ve known for more than thirty years, in a press conference--I’m not revealing anything that was confidential--in a press conference, when he was asked, for instance, what the about some of these statements, he turned to one of the other bishops present there and said you explain it, you wrote it. In other words, it wasn’t his text.
Jeffrey: Even though he was technically responsible for it those weren’t his words or his views.
Cardinal Burke: That’s a very grave situation. I mean, that whole, that’s to me, it’s just profoundly disturbing. And I don’t know, I can’t explain it to you. I’m sorry but I can’t.
Jeffrey: I understand, Your Eminence. But your sense from talking to your brother bishops and cardinals about what happened here, is your sense that the vast majority of them share your concern, understand why the document was problematic and the way it was produced was problematic?
Cardinal Burke: I can’t say the vast majority because I didn’t talk to the vast majority. I can say to you a number, very serious-minded cardinals and bishops with whom I spoke, certainly shared my view of the situation and were very, very deeply disturbed about it. The voting on some of the paragraphs that were still left in in the final report indicates that there were a significant number of cardinals and bishops who remain very concerned that those texts, the texts on the giving of Holy Communion to those who are in irregular unions and giving them access to penance and to the Holy Eucharist and also the texts which were confusing with regard to cohabitation and the homosexual condition indicates that there were a good number of bishops who found this unacceptable. And we don’t, you can’t say because you don’t know what’s in the mind of all the other bishops who maybe didn’t vote to take out the paragraph but you don’t know what exactly they may have been thinking about it.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, in the Catechism which--
Cardinal Burke: In any case, what I would like to say if I may is that this is not, these are not questions that are submitted to a democratic vote, not even of bishops. I mean, this is the constant teaching of the church and the only role of the bishops in the synod is to illustrate and to hold up and to present this to the world. So, I just wanted to make that point.
Jeffrey: Right. The Catholic bishops and cardinals cannot--If 99.9 percent of them voted and denied what Christ said about marriage, they would be wrong and they couldn’t change what He said.
Cardinal Burke: That’s right. And we had that situation in England at the time of Henry VIII, where you had a martyr, Bishop Cardinal John Fisher, and you had the great majority of the other bishops holding the opposite position. But he stood for the truth, and they betrayed their episcopal office.
Jeffrey: But it is extraordinarily confusing to Catholics and perhaps particularly young Catholics that are going through their formation in faith to hear a prince of the church question the church’s teaching on marriage or homosexual behavior.
Cardinal Burke: Absolutely. I understand and I just, what I say to people who bring this to my attention or express their tremendous grief and confusion, I just keep referring them to the constant teaching of the church, to the Catechism, to Familiaris Consortio, and tell them that that stands that cannot change and, therefore, although this is inexcusable behavior, it can happen and we have to simply hold to the truth in our own lives and also give witness to it in the world.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, the Catechism also says that “under no circumstances” can homosexual acts be approved. And it goes on to say that “the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial,” and it goes on to say that people who have that orientation are called to a chaste life.
Now, can any priest, bishop, or pope change what the catechism says about homosexual acts never being, you can never approve them, and that the orientation is objectively disordered? Can that be changed?
Cardinal Burke: No, it’s not possible, it’s part of the natural moral law and it’s obviously also then part of the Magisterium of the Church. No, that can’t be changed.
Jeffrey: The pope himself cannot change that teaching?
Cardinal Burke: No. No, no.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, in that midterm report it also said: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, and accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on family and matrimony? … Without denying the moral problems connected with sexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”
Can the Catholic Church teach that people should quote unquote “value” homosexual orientation?
Cardinal Burke: No, it’s not possible because we treasure, we value, something that is a good and homosexual relations are not good. They’re not good for anyone. In my own pastoral experience, working with people who suffer with same-sex attraction, it is exactly what the Catechism says: It’s a trial for them. And they need the help of a good priest. They need the help, most of all, of prayer and of frequent access to the sacrament of penance to overcome these attractions which are disordered.
Jeffrey: Do you think that the Catechism’s call for Christians to bear witness to the truth has an application towards how Catholics and the clergy should deal with people who have a homosexual orientation?
Cardinal Burke: Absolutely, and the Catechism is very clear on this. The problem with that text that you read is that it’s all confused. Of course, we have to love the people, the individuals who suffer in this way, and we have to be close to them and try in every way to help them, but what they need from us most of all is that we speak the truth to them. And, so, to give them the impression that we think it’s just fine that they may be acting on these attractions is gravely wrong. And, so, we have to give a witness of love and respect for them as children of God, but at the same time to make very clear to them that any acting on this attraction, which they experience, is mortally sinful, it’s gravely wrong. It’s not for their good and it’s not for the good of anyone else who’s involved.
Jeffrey: And people who are cohabitating out of wedlock and living that lifestyle, or who are living a homosexual lifestyle, should they receive, should they go to communion?
Cardinal Burke: The only way you can receive the sacrament of penance is by confessing your sins with a firm purpose of amendment. And, if you can, say, if you confess the sin of having sexual union outside of marriage, or if you confess the sin of engaging in homosexual acts, and you do not have the firm purpose to change your life to avoid those acts in the future, you can’t receive absolution. And, in the same way, too, then you would not be disposed to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion because your life is a contradiction to the truth that He teaches us.
Jeffrey: By the same notion, if someone were a habitual thief and were routinely stealing the private property of someone else, they would need to not only repent of doing that but stop doing that going forward?
Cardinal Burke: Oh, absolutely. For instance, if someone comes and tells you that they are habitually stealing from people, the priests immediately asks first of all if they make restitution for the things they’ve stolen but also are they firmly resolved not to do this again. If they say, no, no I’m going to continue this, then he can’t give them absolution.
Jeffrey: And God can also forgive a murder?
Cardinal Burke: I’m sorry?
Jeffrey: God would also forgive a murder?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, God will forgive someone who commits this terrible act but only if the person is truly repentant of course.
Jeffrey: Or an abortion? God would forgive an abortion or an abortionist?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, if the person is recognizing the gravity of his sin, is repentant, and vowed never to commit this sin again.
Jeffrey: And if a politician advocates the legal taking of innocent human life in an abortion and the funding of it and the continuation of that, is that a grave sin in the view of the Catholic Church?
Cardinal Burke: Oh, of course. It’s not only grave in itself to advocate for acts against the moral law, but then to do it in a public way and as a leader, a political leader, increases the gravity of the sin.
Jeffrey: When a Catholic politician does that is it scandalous?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, of course.
Jeffrey: But if a Catholic politician repented, turned against the advocacy of abortion, and went back the other way and defended life, then they could be forgiven and receive communion?
Cardinal Burke: Of course, of course.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, the Ten Commandments say honor thy father and mother which suggests that children have a right to a father and a mother.
Do children have a God given right to a mother and father?
Cardinal Burke: Absolutely, and that is one of the fundamental truths about human life and its cradle in the family that each child has the right to a father and a mother. This was beautifully witnessed in the demonstrations in Paris and in France in general when the state tried to impose the legality of same-sex unions and that there could be adoption of children. In the demonstrations, the logo was a mother and a father with their two children and basically the message was that every child has a right to a father and a mother and even the most secular people seemed to get that, understand that message.
Jeffrey: So, if a government takes a baby and legally hands it over to the custody of a same-sex couple, thus denying that baby either a mother or a father, has that government denied that child his or her God-given right?
Cardinal Burke: Yes, absolutely, and it’s demonstrated the profound violence done psychologically to the development of a child who grows up in such a situation which is not natural.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, can the Catholic Church ever say there’s something positive about taking a child out of a father-and-mother situation and putting them into a same-sex parent household?
Cardinal Burke: No, no, it’s not possible
Jeffrey: The pope cannot say that? The pope cannot say that on behalf of the Catholic Church that this is good?
Cardinal Burke: No, no. No, no, it’s not possible.
Jeffrey: Alright. Now, in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was then the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and of course later became Benedict XVI, wrote a pastoral letter on the care of homosexuals that was approved by Pope John Paul II and that letter said: “With this in mind this congregation wishes to ask the bishops to be especially cautious of any programs which may seek to pressure the church to change their teaching on homosexuality even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful.” It goes on to say: “Some of these groups will use the word ‘Catholic’ to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it.”
Do you see this very phenomena that Cardinal Ratzinger warned about in his pastoral letter in 1986 happening today perhaps even in reference to the synod?
Cardinal Burke: I’ve certainly seen it in so-called Catholic--false Catholic—movements, which have in fact promoted a way of life in contradiction to the church’s teaching. And I saw it, too, in some of the very confused language of the, for instance, of the midterm report, and I would say that it exactly would be guilty of the fault which the document on the care of persons suffering from the homosexual condition indicated in 1986.
Jeffrey: In sum, do you believe the bishops and the pope have a duty to avoid confusing Catholics about the church’s inalterable teachings on marriage and homosexuality?
Cardinal Burke: Oh, absolutely, even as they have the responsibility to avoid confusing the faithful about anything, especially about such very serious matters, and the duty, too, is even more serious in a culture like our own in which there’s such rampant confusion about these matters. To in any way contribute to the confusion about it, is grossly irresponsible and it’s a betrayal of the pastoral office.
Jeffrey: Your Eminence, given the confusion that so obviously has been sown in the wake of this synod what do you believe Pope Francis should do now? What should he personally do about it?
Cardinal Burke: Well, I’m not in to giving instructions to the pope, I mean. But what the church needs, I can say that.
What the church desperately needs now is a very clear exposition of her teaching with regard to marriage, divorce, with regard to the grave immorality of sexual union outside of marriage, the grave immorality of any kind of attempt at sexual union between persons of the same sex. And she doesn’t have to work hard at this in this sense: that all of the teaching is there. You have quoted it in abundance in this interview. There are many other texts as well. And the church must now in this period hold up the beauty, the splendor, of this teaching for the sake of her own members that they not be confused about the truth but also for the sake of our world and the church’s call to serve the world by proclaiming the truth and by giving witness to it.
And, so, I’m praying very fervently that this coming year that this confusion will stop and instead that there will begin to be a strong emphasis on the beauty of the truth of the church’s teaching on marriage and on human life and human sexuality.
Jeffrey: Cardinal Raymond Burke, thank you very much.
Cardinal Burke: You’re most welcome.
Posted by plato at 11:45 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

My NCR 'dialogue' on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Your comment: Could you explain this statement pleas: " it IS about doctrine,you know, the deposit of faith...and the LCWR leadership's lack of acceptance of Church Doctrine and teaching.."
EXACTLY which doctrines of the church are the LCWR not accepting? Please be specific (and do not refer me to reading past articles in NCR.) Pick ONE doctrine you see them denying and give proof.
My reply:
Yes, I can explain. Remember what Pope Francis said about women's ordination on his first airplane interview?
Pope Francis’ words concerning women’s ordination were,
“And, with reference to the ordination of women
the Church has spoken
and she said : “No.”
John Paul II said it,
but with a definitive formulation.
That is closed, that door is closed.”
I had to go research this for myself to try to understand what Pope Francis meant. Everybody was thinking that Pope Francis had said no to the question but he did not. John Paul II did. And he purposely did it speaking ex cathedra in order to make this statement an infallible teaching binding on all the faithful to believe.
Pope John Paul II made an infallible declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis using a 'definitive formula'(as Pope Francis put it), that the priesthood is reserved for men and the Church cannot ever ordain women.
As stated in Vatican I , speaking ex cathedra means that
◾it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra,
◾he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,
◾and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the pope's infallible statement speaking ex cathedra is:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Pope John Paul II announced “in a definitive mode” that the Catholic priesthood is reserved to men,
and therefore the Church cannot ever ordain women.
By making this announcement in these unquestionable terms, the Pope made it clear that his successors would be bound by the same restriction, since the all-male priesthood was established not by human rules by divine command.
And that is the explanation of Pope Francis cryptic answer in the question of womens ordination . It is also the doctrine and explanation of proof that you had asked for. You can look the whole document up for yourself if you want to . I just took the pertinent lines from it...Anyway,Pope Francis didn't do it. His hands are tied...Phew!

jwelhwel Ursula • 2 days ago

You are missing a piece of what is required when a pope speaks"ex catedra".A pope cannot declare something "ex cathedra alone, by himself.

Ursula jwelhwel • 11 hours ago

What???. There is only one who sits in the chair of Peter. ex cathedra means speaking from the chair. Only the pope, by definition, can speak ex cathedra.The pope does not need anyone else for speaking ex cathedra. Where do you get that idea that the pope cannot speak ex cathedra a;one????? ....There are other ways to have an infallible teaching besides ex cathedra. Is that what you are referring to?
The college of cardinal speaking IN UNION with the pope can speak infallibly. The college of cardinals by itself cannot- only, when they are speaking in union with the pope, The pope does not need anyone to be in union with him in order to speak from the chair of Peter . Speaking excathdra has a specific definition but it does not include anyone but the pope. It would be helpful if you could show me where you get this idea from.

jwelhwel Ursula • 6 hours ago

Of course, the pope is the only one who can speak ex-catedra, that is infallibly. But the pope is mandated to speak as such only after wide consultation including the college of cardinals. He is also charged with assessing the "sense of the people" before a declaration of infallibility.Google infallibility and you will read about his need for consultation.


      Ursula jwelhwel • an hour ago

      Google is not my authority for Church teaching. And I am sorry but you are mistaken . The pope does not need anyones collaboration to make an infallible declaration. As stated in the catechism, he can make one because he is pope-BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE .The pope does not have to be in union with anyone to make an infallible declaration. The College of bishops on the other hand MUST be in union with the pope ! They have no authority on their own without the pope. They only have authority in union with the pope!
      FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
      (-inside {} are my comments)
      890...Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
      891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      {In other words all the pope needs is the virtue of his office to be able to make an infallible declaration. The college of bishops MUST be in union with the pope to make an infallible declaration. The pope does not have to be in union with anyone to make the infallible declaration}
      882...."For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 {unhindered and by virtue of his office means that he needs no one else's permission or corroboration!}
      883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404 { the college of bishops , on the other had has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff. The Bishops MUST be in union with the Roman Pontiff to have authority but the Pope does not have to be in union with anyone because his authority comes from the office he holds.}
      Are you referring to an article someone wrote or an actual Church Document in your google search? I saw an article recently saying that but the author had his explanation backwards. I could not comment because I had to register and when I tried the popup wanted me to give permission for them to post as me....so naturally , I did not register


      Ursula jwelhwel • 11 hours ago

      Can you show me where this requirement for speaking ' ex cathedra' that you are speaking of can be found? Speaking 'ex cathedra' means speaking from the chair and only one sits in the chair of Peter, the pope.

      Dennis Galon Ursula • 2 days ago

      Ursula, there is no way that any competent theologian (someone with a doctoral degree in theology) would agree with you that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible statement. There was at the time a story to the effect that JP2 wanted to make the declaration ex cathedra, but was dissuaded from doing so. The result was the language you quote ("to be definitively held"). The language was adopted as a way for JP2 to say he was really, really sure about this, without actually invoking infallibility.
      The notion that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible derives NOT from the internal evidence you point to, but rather from that fact the Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF before he become pope, in another document (name escapes me at the moment) declared that our inability to ordain women was infallible. Some people leaped to the conclusion that he was asserting Ordinatio Sacerdoatalis was infallible, and thus some, apparently including you, began confidently asserting it was infallible.
      Again no competent theologian agrees with that interpretation.
      What Ratzinger said was that our inability to ordain women was infallible by virtue of the "ordinary magisterium." Now this is a technical term with a precise meaning for theologians. It means that something that has "always and everywhere" being taught by the Church, even if it has never ever been defined as dogma, is infallible by virtue of having always and everywhere been taught.
      Ratzinger's argument is solid, and it would be correct, if only it were true that the exclusive male nature of the priesthood has "always and everywhere been taught."
      This is contradicted by asking Why did JP2 write Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? and Why did Ratzinger as head of the CDF issue his statement? The answer in both cases is they declared we could not ordain women precisely because many theologians and some bishops were saying that indeed we could, and we should, and we must.
      Do you see the irony? Precisely because at that time and in many places it was being stated that women could be ordained, Ratzinger said the opposite. Factually, therefore, it was not true that "always and everywhere" the Church has taught women can't be ordained. Then and there, theologians were saying the opposite.
      Finally, back to what Francis meant. He meant that JP2 has declared definitively we can't ordain women, and he accepts that. He did not say he was accepting it because it was infallible. That he agrees with JP2 is important, but multiple popes saying the same thing does not convert a very strong opinion into an infallible pronouncement.


      Ursula Dennis Galon • an hour ago

      MY notion that this statement WITHIN JP II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible declaration, IS from the internal evidence. As I am not using the ordinary magisterium in my explanation, a theologian's expertise is not required simply to read and understand Vatican I's stated definition of infallibility. I believe that the ordinary magisterium is a valid point and a valid discussion up to the point that there is an infallible declaration by the pope. At that time, it seems to be that it would become a moot point. The teaching's validity now comes from the Pope's infallible statement. For the record, I think the point about the ordinary magisterium may have been about the teaching being held always and everywhere for the time UNTIL this disagreement - the 1900+ years that came before...
      Competent theologians are the subject of a different conversation. I do need to note, however, that theologians, regardless of their competence, doctoral degrees, faithfulness or even mandatums are not a part of the teaching authority of the Church. .they are in service to the Church and can help the Church grow and learn but final decisions inevitably fall to the teaching magisterium of the Church as does the interpretation of doctrine already defined and/or held by the Church.
      On the definition of speaking ex cathedra, do you think that JPII's statement that follows fulfills Vatican I's definition for speaking ex cathedra?
      Or has some part of this definition not been fulfilled?
      "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
      What part, if any, of the definition does this statement not fulfill?
      You said that JPII wanted to make an infallible statement on this issue but that he was dissuaded form it. Would you happen to know where I might find evidence of this or the story about this?
      Judging from the definitions that I read from Vatican I, as far as I can tell, it does not look to me like he was dissuaded from making an infallible statement. It looks to me like he did it anyway...Have theologians addressed this from this internal evidence?
      Also I think that Pope Francis statement means that he understands this 'definitive statement' to be an infallible statement and as a matter of faith to be believed. It does not sound to me like he simply agrees with the statement .(in fact , he just might not agree with it)
      Pope Francis said 'The Church has spoken and she said no'....THE Church has spoken- as in a teaching....He also said , John Paul II said it, vut with a definitive formulation. That door is closed." ...In other words, JPII didn't just say it, he did it with a definitive formulation. That the door is closed because this definitive formulation,by virtue of his office as pope, . That makes it an infallible statement that closed that door. ... That is how I understand what Pope Francis said,,,, Pope Francis does not close doors , he is much more known for opening doors and welcoming...He is not known for closing doors...I do not believe that he said that because he agrees...he said it because John Paul II closed that door with his definitive statement,,,because John Paul II, by virtue of his office as pope and to ensure that there could be no doubt , DECLARED that the church had no authority to ordain women and that it is a matter of faith to be believed by all the faithful....He also said that this was matter pertaining to the Divine constitution of the Church. It seems pretty clear to me ....It is just that people don't like it but John Paul II DID purposely speak ex cathedra when he made that statement concerning women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. However, the way I see it does not really matter because I am not part of the magisterium of the Church, either...
      Posted by plato at 5:53 AM No comments:
      Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

      Monday, October 27, 2014

      Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

      Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

      Index
       
      Facebook Twitter Google+ Mail
      BackTopPrint

      ENCYCLICAL LETTER
      HUMANAE VITAE

      OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
      PAUL VI
      TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
      THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
      AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
      IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
      TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,
      ON
      THE REGULATION OF BIRTH
       
       
      Honored Brothers and Dear Sons,
      Health and Apostolic Benediction.

      The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.
      The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.

      I.
      PROBLEM AND COMPETENCY
      OF THE MAGISTERIUM
      2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
      Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
      But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

      New Questions
      3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?
      Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

      Interpreting the Moral Law
      4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.
      No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)
      In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)

      Special Studies
      5. The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for. (5)
      When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

      The Magisterium's Reply
      6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
      Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.

      II.
      DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES
      7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.

      God's Loving Design
      8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)
      Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
      The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

      Married Love
      9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.
      This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
      It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
      Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
      Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)

      Responsible Parenthood
      10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
      With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
      With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.
      With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
      Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
      From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

      Observing the Natural Law
      11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

      Union and Procreation
      12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
      The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

      Faithfulness to God's Design
      13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

      Unlawful Birth Control Methods
      14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
      Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
      Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

      Lawful Therapeutic Means
      15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

      Recourse to Infertile Periods
      16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
      If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
      Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

      Consequences of Artificial Methods
      17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
      Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

      Limits to Man's Power
      Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the "principle of totality" enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)

      Concern of the Church
      18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
      Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
      In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men." (23)

      III.
      PASTORAL DIRECTIVES
      19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. She knows their weaknesses, she has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life restored to its native truth and guided by the Spirit of God. (24) Observing the Divine Law.
      20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.

      Value of Self-Discipline
      21. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

      Promotion of Chastity
      22. We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.
      Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities.

      Appeal to Public Authorities
      23. And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded.

      Seeking True Solutions
      We are fully aware of the difficulties confronting the public authorities in this matter, especially in the developing countries. In fact, We had in mind the justifiable anxieties which weigh upon them when We published Our encyclical letter Populorum Progressio. But now We join Our voice to that of Our predecessor John XXIII of venerable memory, and We make Our own his words: "No statement of the problem and no solution to it is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values." (26) No one can, without being grossly unfair, make divine Providence responsible for what clearly seems to be the result of misguided governmental policies, of an insufficient sense of social justice, of a selfish accumulation of material goods, and finally of a culpable failure to undertake those initiatives and responsibilities which would raise the standard of living of peoples and their children. (27) If only all governments which were able would do what some are already doing so nobly, and bestir themselves to renew their efforts and their undertakings! There must be no relaxation in the programs of mutual aid between all the branches of the great human family. Here We believe an almost limitless field lies open for the activities of the great international institutions.

      To Scientists
      24. Our next appeal is to men of science. These can "considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births." (28) It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring. (29) In this way scientists, especially those who are Catholics, will by their research establish the truth of the Church's claim that "there can be no contradiction between two divine laws—that which governs the transmitting of life and that which governs the fostering of married love." (30)

      To Christian Couples
      25. And now We turn in a special way to Our own sons and daughters, to those most of all whom God calls to serve Him in the state of marriage. While the Church does indeed hand on to her children the inviolable conditions laid down by God's law, she is also the herald of salvation and through the sacraments she flings wide open the channels of grace through which man is made a new creature responding in charity and true freedom to the design of his Creator and Savior, experiencing too the sweetness of the yoke of Christ. (31)
      In humble obedience then to her voice, let Christian husbands and wives be mindful of their vocation to the Christian life, a vocation which, deriving from their Baptism, has been confirmed anew and made more explicit by the Sacrament of Matrimony. For by this sacrament they are strengthened and, one might almost say, consecrated to the faithful fulfillment of their duties. Thus will they realize to the full their calling and bear witness as becomes them, to Christ before the world. (32) For the Lord has entrusted to them the task of making visible to men and women the holiness and joy of the law which united inseparably their love for one another and the cooperation they give to God's love, God who is the Author of human life.
      We have no wish at all to pass over in silence the difficulties, at times very great, which beset the lives of Christian married couples. For them, as indeed for every one of us, "the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life." (33) Nevertheless it is precisely the hope of that life which, like a brightly burning torch, lights up their journey, as, strong in spirit, they strive to live "sober, upright and godly lives in this world," (34) knowing for sure that "the form of this world is passing away." (35)

      Recourse to God
      For this reason husbands and wives should take up the burden appointed to them, willingly, in the strength of faith and of that hope which "does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us ~}36 Then let them implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all, let them draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist. If, however, sin still exercises its hold over them, they are not to lose heart. Rather must they, humble and persevering, have recourse to the mercy of God, abundantly bestowed in the Sacrament of Penance. In this way, for sure, they will be able to reach that perfection of married life which the Apostle sets out in these words: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church. . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband." (37)

      Family Apostolate
      26. Among the fruits that ripen if the law of God be resolutely obeyed, the most precious is certainly this, that married couples themselves will often desire to communicate their own experience to others. Thus it comes about that in the fullness of the lay vocation will be included a novel and outstanding form of the apostolate by which, like ministering to like, married couples themselves by the leadership they offer will become apostles to other married couples. And surely among all the forms of the Christian apostolate it is hard to think of one more opportune for the present time. (38)

      To Doctors and Nurses
      27. Likewise we hold in the highest esteem those doctors and members of the nursing profession who, in the exercise of their calling, endeavor to fulfill the demands of their Christian vocation before any merely human interest. Let them therefore continue constant in their resolution always to support those lines of action which accord with faith and with right reason. And let them strive to win agreement and support for these policies among their professional colleagues. Moreover, they should regard it as an essential part of their skill to make themselves fully proficient in this difficult field of medical knowledge. For then, when married couples ask for their advice, they may be in a position to give them right counsel and to point them in the proper direction. Married couples have a right to expect this much from them.

      To Priests
      28. And now, beloved sons, you who are priests, you who in virtue of your sacred office act as counselors and spiritual leaders both of individual men and women and of families—We turn to you filled with great confidence. For it is your principal duty—We are speaking especially to you who teach moral theology—to spell out clearly and completely the Church's teaching on marriage. In the performance of your ministry you must be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church. For, as you know, the pastors of the Church enjoy a special light of the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth. (39) And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience. Nor will it escape you that if men's peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice. Therefore We make Our own the anxious words of the great Apostle Paul and with all Our heart We renew Our appeal to you: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (40)

      Christian Compassion
      29. Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ; but this must always be joined with tolerance and charity, as Christ Himself showed in His conversations and dealings with men. For when He came, not to judge, but to save the world, (41) was He not bitterly severe toward sin, but patient and abounding in mercy toward sinners?
      Husbands and wives, therefore, when deeply distressed by reason of the difficulties of their life, must find stamped in the heart and voice of their priest the likeness of the voice and the love of our Redeemer.
      So speak with full confidence, beloved sons, convinced that while the Holy Spirit of God is present to the magisterium proclaiming sound doctrine, He also illumines from within the hearts of the faithful and invites their assent. Teach married couples the necessary way of prayer and prepare them to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart because of their weakness.

      To Bishops
      30. And now as We come to the end of this encyclical letter, We turn Our mind to you, reverently and lovingly, beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate, with whom We share more closely the care of the spiritual good of the People of God. For We invite all of you, We implore you, to give a lead to your priests who assist you in the sacred ministry, and to the faithful of your dioceses, and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time. As you well know, it calls for concerted pastoral action in every field of human diligence, economic, cultural and social. If simultaneous progress is made in these various fields, then the intimate life of parents and children in the family will be rendered not only more tolerable, but easier and more joyful. And life together in human society will be enriched with fraternal charity and made more stable with true peace when God's design which He conceived for the world is faithfully followed.

      A Great Work
      31. Venerable brothers, beloved sons, all men of good will, great indeed is the work of education, of progress and of charity to which We now summon all of you. And this We do relying on the unshakable teaching of the Church, which teaching Peter's successor together with his brothers in the Catholic episcopate faithfully guards and interprets. And We are convinced that this truly great work will bring blessings both on the world and on the Church. For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature. These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed. On this great work, on all of you and especially on married couples, We implore from the God of all holiness and pity an abundance of heavenly grace as a pledge of which We gladly bestow Our apostolic blessing.
      Given at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 25th day of July, the feast of St. James the Apostle, in the year 1968, the sixth of Our pontificate.
      PAUL VI

      NOTES

      LATIN TEXT: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 60 (1968), 481-503.
      ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Pope Speaks, 13 (Fall. 1969), 329-46.
      REFERENCES:
      (1) See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457.
      (2) See Mt 28. 18-19.
      (3) See Mt 7. 21.
      (4) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29; Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295]; Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2.
      (5) See Paul VI, Address to Sacred College of Cardinals: AAS 56 (1964), 588 [TPS IX, 355-356]; to Commission for the Study of Problems of Population, Family and Birth: AAS 57 (1965), 388 [TPS X, 225]; to National Congress of the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology: AAS 58 (1966), 1168 [TPS XI, 401-403].
      (6) See 1 Jn 4. 8.
      (7) Eph 3. 15.
      (8) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1072 [TPS XI, 292-293].
      (9) See St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, art. 2.
      (10) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50- 5 1: AAS 58 ( 1 966) 1070-1073 [TPS XI, 292-293].
      (11) See ibid., no. 49: AAS 58 (1966), 1070 [TPS XI, 291-292].
      (12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.
      (13) See encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].
      (14) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 562-564; Pius XII, Address to Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi, VI, 191-192; Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 842-843; Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; John XXIII, encyc. letter Pacem in terris: AAS 55 (1963), 259-260 [TPS IX, 15-16]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].
      (15) See Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 565; Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 22, 1940: AAS 32 (1940), 73; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43
      (1951), 843-844; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].
      (16) See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Pius XI, encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 559-561; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843; to the Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].
      (17) See Pius XII, Address to National Congress of Italian Society of the Union of Catholic Jurists: AAS 45 (1953), 798-799 [TPS I, 67-69].
      (18) See Rom 3. 8.
      (19) See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].
      (20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.
      (21) See Pius XII, Address to Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to leaders and members of Italian Association of Cornea Donors and Italian Association for the Blind: AAS 48 (1956), 461-462 [TPS III, 200-201].
      (22) Lk 2. 34.
      (23) See Paul Vl, encyc. letter Populorum progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 268 [TPS XII, 151].
      (24) See Rom 8.
      (25) See Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Media of Social Communication, nos. 6-7: AAS 56 (1964), 147 [TPS IX, 340-341].
      (26) Encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 447 [TPS VII, 331].
      (27) See encyc. letter Populorum progressio, nos. 48-55: AAS 59 (1967), 281-284 [TPS XII, 160-162].
      (28) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 52: AAS 58 (1966), 1074 [TPS XI, 294].
      (29) Address to Family Campaign and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 859.
      (30) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 51: AAS 58 (1966), 1072 [TPS XI, 293].
      (31) See Mt 11. 30.
      (32) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, no. 48: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1069 [TPS XI,290-291]; Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 35: AAS 57 (1965), 40-41 [TPS X, 382-383].
      (33) Mt 7. 14; see Heb 12. 11.
      (34) See Ti 2. 12.
      (35) See 1 Cor 7. 31.
      (36) Rom 5. 5.
      (37) Eph 5. 25, 28-29, 32-33.
      (38) See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, nos. 35, 41: AAS 57 (1965), 40-45 [TPS X, 382-383, 386-387; Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 48-49: AAS 58 (1966),1067-1070 [TPS XI, 290-292]; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, no. 11: AAS 58 (1966), 847-849 [TPS XI, 128-129].
      (39) See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25: AAS 57 (1965), 29-31 [TPS X, 375-376].
      (40) 1 Cor 1. 10.
      (41) See Jn 3. 17.
                 


      © Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
      Posted by plato at 4:18 AM No comments:
      Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
      Newer Posts Older Posts Home
      Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

      iBreviary: PRAY ONLINE!

      Pages

      • Home
      • Pray the Breviary
      • CATHOLIC LINKS- a work in progress
      • Letter to a 'sort of Sedevacantist' by F. John Loughnan
      • Pillars of Catholicism: Lecture Notes, Readings, S...

      Translate

      Blog Archive

      • ►  2022 (1)
        • ►  May (1)
      • ►  2021 (4)
        • ►  November (2)
        • ►  September (2)
      • ►  2019 (2)
        • ►  May (1)
        • ►  April (1)
      • ►  2018 (1)
        • ►  April (1)
      • ►  2017 (7)
        • ►  October (1)
        • ►  July (1)
        • ►  April (1)
        • ►  March (3)
        • ►  January (1)
      • ►  2016 (5)
        • ►  December (1)
        • ►  September (2)
        • ►  August (2)
      • ►  2015 (55)
        • ►  October (3)
        • ►  September (6)
        • ►  August (2)
        • ►  July (3)
        • ►  June (2)
        • ►  May (5)
        • ►  April (4)
        • ►  March (17)
        • ►  February (4)
        • ►  January (9)
      • ▼  2014 (525)
        • ►  December (8)
        • ►  November (99)
        • ▼  October (62)
          • Cardinal Burke: ‘I’m Praying Very Fervently That T...
          • My NCR 'dialogue' on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
          • Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness ...
          • THE ROMAN CATECHISM
          • I'm a Divorced Catholic. And I'm Sure It Would Be ...
          • Pope Francis to the Synod: “Speak clearly, do not ...
          • Pope Francis' Address to the Synod Fathers | ZENIT...
          • CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
          • Fr. Hardon Archives - Introduction and Table of Co...
          • Fr. Hardon Audio Archives - MP3 Audio Archive Index
          • Resource Library: Apologetics | St. Paul Center Fo...
          • The Understanding the Scriptures Podcast | 30 Epis...
          • Synod fathers on updating church language
          • Agape Bible Study Charts
          • Agape Bible Study Documents - Church History
          • THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE
          • Agape Bible Study - Bible Study List
          • Agape Bible Study Documents
          • Old Testament Canon
          • Is the Pope Still a Jesuit? | America Magazine
          • Helpful Links - Catholics United for the Faith - C...
          • Church Documents Archives - Catholics United for t...
          • The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever W...
          • Fr John T. Zuhlsdorf: Former Lutheran - The Journe...
          • Apologetics Archives - Catholics United for the Fa...
          • The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever W...
          • MY AfterSynod THOUGHTS and ABC News' Where Did Gay...
          • Cardinal Kasper is enjoying the spotlight, and tak...
          • Saint Michael's Basic Training Doctrinal Proclamat...
          • Saint Michael's Basic Training : Apologetics
          • "On This Rock"
          • The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek
          • The Mystery of Melchizedek Solved!
          • A “Lambeth Moment” for the Synod
          • Cardinal Pell Slams Hand Down: 'Stop Manipulating ...
          • WITNESS: The Second Vatican Council was for Renewa...
          • WITNESS: Rosica and Baum: Salt and Light TV is in ...
          • Father John Corapi speaks about the Winnipeg State...
          • Pope Francis revealing his take on Synod controver...
          • Notes on Gregory Baum; By Their Fruits you Shall K...
          • Tragedy at Winnipeg: the Canadian Catholic Bishops...
          • Humanae Vitae and Canada, Forty Years Later. By Mo...
          • LIFE ISSUES | Selected Writings of Rev. Msgr. Vinc...
          • Rockhurst University to Host Symposium with Newspa...
          • Catechetics Online: Homepage
          • Catechetics Online: Catechism, Bible and Theology ...
          • Catechetics Online: Fathers in the Faith Links
          • Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview | Edward Pe...
          • Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis de...
          • Synod14: Full Text of Relatio Post Disceptationem ...
          • Zbigniew Brzezinski's Shocking Quote in 'Witness ...
          • The Book of Enoch Online
          • Understanding the Scriptures - YouTube
          • Scriptural Reference Guide | Catholic Answers
          • Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
          • Fathers of the Church - Catholic Culture
          • Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995 - John Paul II
          • Chapter II: The Apogee and Crisis of the Third Rev...
          • BASIC CATHOLIC CATECHISM
          • Catholic Re-Evangelization with Fr. John A Hardon ...
          • Massa Damnata from ChurchMilitantTV
          • Catechism of the Council of Trent - Roman Catechis...
        • ►  September (56)
        • ►  August (40)
        • ►  July (7)
        • ►  June (5)
        • ►  May (16)
        • ►  April (74)
        • ►  March (137)
        • ►  February (17)
        • ►  January (4)
      • ►  2013 (348)
        • ►  December (65)
        • ►  November (55)
        • ►  October (135)
        • ►  September (93)

      About Me

      plato
      View my complete profile

      Followers

      FAIR USE NOTICE

      FAIR USE NOTICE: The information and materials used on this blog, i.e. articles, videos, etc., may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, spiritual, religious, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: /http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
      Theme images by RBFried. Powered by Blogger.