Cheap at twice the price
A Vatican spokesman in the shape of a priest (a celibate male, in other words) called the open letter to the pope ‘paid propaganda to promote the use of contraceptives’. Well, yes: it was paid in the sense that it was a paid advertisement in the Corriere della Sera and it was propaganda in the sense that it was an attempt at persuasion – but nevertheless calling it that is 1. somewhat tendentious and 2. a bad joke coming from the not exactly unpaid Vatican which spends quite a lot of time and effort on its own propaganda, well backed up with commands which are in turn backed up with threats of excommunication and burning in hell for eternity. And then, ‘Father’ Federico Lombardi isn’t going to have to live with the consequences of any unwanted pregnancy or any sexually transmitted disease that comes into being as a result of the Vatican’s paid propaganda to forbid the use of contraceptives – unless of course he’s a celibate priest in name only. Either way there is and always has been something very repellent about the Vatican’s passion to impose conditions on other people that it is itself exempt from. It is of course a great deal more repellent that the Vatican is so irresponsible about this – that it insists on pretending to think that an invented theological scruple about contraception is worth imposing involuntary childbirth and childrearing on millions upon millions of women all over the planet. The disproportion there is disgusting. Does the Vatican even stop to think, to name just one obvious item, of the parents who have to see their children die of starvation or malnutrition or malaria or diarrhea or other childhood diseases because the parents have more children than they can raise in healthy conditions? If it does, it doesn’t act on the thinking. The Vatican is an arbitrary authoritarian heedless callous essentially frivolous outfit that preens itself on bogus moral scruples while causing real (and appalling) suffering on poor people in their millions. The Vatican has a nerve, and so does its spokesman.
“First and foremost,” said Fr. Lombardi, “the authors are a part of a number of groups that are well known for their dissenting positions which are not limited to the mere teaching of marital morality but are also concerned with many other subjects (for instance the ordination of women) and that therefore for some time have been against the Magisterium of the Church.”
Yeah. And for good reason. The ordination of men-only just perpetuates this arrangement where unmarried men impose absurd laws on women while remaining immune themselves. The ‘Magisterium of the Church’ is a racket, and a sadistic one at that.
Above all, the Vatican’s spokesman highlighted that the letter “does not remotely broach the true issue that is at the heart of the Humanae Vitae, i.e. the connection among the human and spiritual relation between husband and wife, the practice of sexuality as its expression, and its fecundity.” In the “letter,” pointed out Fr. Lombardi, “the word ‘love’ never appears. It seems the groups that wrote the letter are not interested in it at all. It seems the only hope of the couples and the world lies in contraception alone.”
What true issue? What true issue is that? What about its ‘fecundity’? What makes you think the Vatican is interested in ‘love’? What makes you think ordering people to risk pregnancy every time they have sex somehow produces more ‘love’ in the world? What makes you think it doesn’t work exactly the other way? Why do you skate right past the obvious likelihood that an intentional pregnancy is much more likely to lead to a loved child than an inadvertent one is? Anyone would think that the Vatican had never heard there are incompetent or unkind parents in the world, and that it’s safer to improve the odds than it is to worsen them.
After all, concluded Lombardi, “it’s clear it is not an article that expresses a theological or moral position, it is paid propaganda to promote the use of contraceptives. One should also wonder who paid for it and why.”
Okay – and who paid for Lombardi? And why?
Good one, Ophelia.
“Yeah. And for good reason. The ordination of men-only just perpetuates this arrangement where unmarried men impose absurd laws on women while remaining immune themselves. The ‘Magisterium of the Church’ is a racket, and a sadistic one at that.”
Now I have never been a Catholic, and so defer readily to others on certain matters of the One True Church, its faith and its morals. But a commenter at another blog (Webdiary) recently pointed out that while nuns take a vow of chastity, priests take one of celibacy. A moment’s thought shows that the two are not quite the same.
Take the case of Cardinal Danielou, who suffered a fatal heart attack after racing up the stairs of a Paris brothel one afternoon in 1974. (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Cardinal+Danielou,+brothel&spell=1) One of the items on the first page of that Google search provides a rich harvest of belly laughs. Go to http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/brokencross/PartSeven.htm
The brothel was run by a certain Madame Santoni “… who occupied an upper floor at number fifty-six in the Rue Dulong, a none too reputable quarter just north of the Boulevard des Batignolles. Her message brought the police rushing to the scene, for it told them that no less a person than a Cardinal was dead on her premises.”
In the subsequent coverage of this event in the Parisian press (which, as all the world knows, absolutely shuns and detests the reporting of scandal) it was suggested that the Cardinal had gone there to hear the confessions of Madame (entitled so in more ways than one) Santoni and her professional colleagues. Attending to that lengthy, arduous and time-consuming task no doubt helped explain why the Cardinal had made so many visits to the place. Possibly, he was detained further by additional hearing of confession from some of his own professional colleagues; encountered in situ, so to
speak.
Actually, this was quite likely, as any one of Madame Santoni’s clerical patrons could have fallen down the stairs on his way out of the place and finished up in Purgatory for an extended stay, or even worse.
All in a day’s work. Arduous, but someone had to do it.
Oh, I love this–the standard right-wing lie that contraception is some kind of huge racket that someone is profiting from.
And silly Ophelia–don’t you know that “love” is totally non-physical, and can thrive even when couples can’t enjoy each other sexually?
My government does (as do others).
Because a risk-free electoral path can be had shmoozing with catholics.
On the up: HIV is now categorized as a chronical, no longer terminal, disease so the wrath of God has abandoned even this argument of the church. If I were them I’d choose a more dependable ally than such a fickle God that can’t even keep his punishment for free sex – who says he keeps his after-life promises?
One small correction: Diocesan priests under direct authority of a bishop make “promises” not vows of celibacy. (The Church is nothing if not “nuanced”).
It is members of religious orders (Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Trappists, etc.)who vow chastity, whether they are priests, brothers or nuns.
Brian: Thanks for your well-nuanced note.
On that matter, I took the word of a commenter on another site; who does not appear to be as well informed as you.
I will pass it on, and hopefully the world will become wiser, at whatever rate.
Brian: That information has now been passed on. For your interest, it is at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2413#comment-81904
Many thanks.
Tangentially related comment:
I think far too many people just don’t realize the effects of pregnancy and childbirth on a woman’s body and mind, and actually think of it as a TRIVIAL thing–which shows you just how little women’s bodily autonomy is valued by men in charge.
To give you an example: I’ve been attempting to read philosophy blogs lately and in the process came across a mildly-positive speculation (from a Princeton grad student!) on the idea of a “paternal veto” for abortion (e.g. a man forcing a woman to give birth because of his genetic relationship to the fetus). The poster said, off-hand, that the father’s relationship to the fetus was “slightly” less intimate than the mother’s! And actually compared forcing a woman to have an abortion with allowing a woman to have an abortion despite the genetic father’s wishes, on the basis that both were interfering with a prospective parent’s hopes and dreams (blithely skimming over the fact that the first violates an individual’s right to use her body for her own ends, whereas the second protects it and forbids the forcible use of her body for another’s ends).
This, mind you, was not a Catholic or a conservative of any type, but merely a weedy liberal academic who was capable of making such comments about pregnancy and childbirth without irony.
imposing involuntary childbirth and childrearing on millions upon millions of women all over the planet.
Of course, the Church would say that it’s not imposing involuntary childrearing because the woman can just hand over the children for adoption. Leaving aside the lack of adoptive parents for nonwhite, disabled or ill babies, the common idea that most women can just hand over a child after a pregnancy and then bounce back to normal life unscathed is another example of the underrating of the effects of pregnancy in popular discourse.
Jenavir. You wrote: “Of course, the Church would say that it’s not imposing involuntary childrearing because the woman can just hand over the children for adoption. Leaving aside the lack of adoptive parents for nonwhite, disabled or ill babies, the common idea that most women can just hand over a child after a pregnancy and then bounce back to normal life unscathed is another example of the underrating of the effects of pregnancy in popular discourse.”
Nobody ever sets out to have a disabled or ill baby. That just happens, unfortunately. But just out of curiosity, what sort of support services and circumstances would have to be available to induce you to counsel a woman who became pregnant unintentionally to go to term and hand the baby over to be adopted?
I’m not sure that Brian is right regarding the role of vows and promises in Catholicism. In the Catholic Encyclopedia we read this about the sacrament of orders:
And ‘vow’ is interpreted by the encyclopedia as a ‘promise to God’. So it would seem that all priests (this quote refers to the subdiactonate, the place of entry into Orders) do in fact make a vow to renounce marriage and to remain celibate ‘for the more perfect observance of chastity,’ as the Encyclopedia says.
“Of course, the Church would say that it’s not imposing involuntary childrearing because the woman can just hand over the children for adoption.”
I don’t know, would the Church say that? And would it say it in all parts of the world?
What I mainly had in mind was the effect of the policy on poor people, especially in poor countries; I think poor people in poor countries mostly can’t just hand children over for adoption. I also think the Vatican knows this. I think it knows perfectly well that forced childbearing usually also entails forced childrearing.
Gee, I can think of another reason abstinence is not as popular as condoms. I wonder if Father Euteneuer could too if he thought really hard.
Abstinence costs ‘lives’ Unless, third world lives, mean ‘nothing’.
Ian,
I do hope my “nuanced” came across as tongue-in-cheek. I grew-up Catholic and at early age became adroit at making these bizarre distinctions and counting angels on pinheads.
“Promise”, “Vow”. The attempt at difference was made but never made any sense to me. It was quite clear however, that breaking a vow was somehow more dangerous than breaking a promise (perhaps because there were always more vowed women than men?).
Why wonder when dealing with a religion able to conflate Three with One? “Nuanced” indeed.
The devil is in the details so beware sowing your discordant seeds by asking dangeorus questions…(Tongue-in-cheek! Tongue-in-cheek!)
Eric, you may well be right about my being mistaken. On the other hand, you may just not know how to read “Catholic”: “..the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity.”
Never underestimate the potential power of a single word, in this case: “equivalently”. That word would no doubt mean “equally” to the two of us but when push comes to shove (pun intended) may possess a real vagueness disguised as specificity in “Catholic”. Bill Clinton has nothing on the Catholic Church when it comes to semantics.
Having said that, I still may be misinformed and the priest who instructed me (no saint)simply putting a personal gloss on the “promise” he had made.
Thanks for providing the canonical text. Very interesting.
“a real vagueness disguised as specificity”
Ooh – now that’s weird – I’ve just been writing something about exactly that, with reference to the Cairo Declaration.
Not to flog a dying/dead horse here, but Eric’s correction got me thinking about the context of the instruction I received regarding vows and promises. It may well be that Eric is “righter”.
My questioning of the priest was prompted by his owning a brand new Corvette. I asked how he was allowed such a luxury when he had made a vow of poverty? He replied that diocesan priests don’t vow poverty or anything else, they make “promises”. He then informed me that only Religious make vows.
I have evidently been extrapolating, though I still don’t think I’m far off the mark, convinced the Church wouldn’t distinguish between a promise and a vow if there weren’t some loophole it wanted to create or close.
Go right ahead and flog, this stuff is interesting. And not unimportant. These loopholes matter.
After all – many religions do flatter themselves that they worry about poverty and poor people in some way superior to that of secular ideas and people. We want to know if in fact they do that with a handy loophole in their pockets.
“A person who lives a religious life according to vows they have made is called a votary or a votarist”. Religious Vows Wiki.
But just out of curiosity, what sort of support services and circumstances would have to be available to induce you to counsel a woman who became pregnant unintentionally to go to term and hand the baby over to be adopted?
I don’t think I would ever counsel someone to do that. Of course I would respect their right to do it if they so choose, but it’s not something I would feel comfortable advising someone to do, regardless of what support
What I mainly had in mind was the effect of the policy on poor people, especially in poor countries; I think poor people in poor countries mostly can’t just hand children over for adoption. I also think the Vatican knows this.services exist. My point was that the lack of social services adds an extra element of brutality to the situation.
I think they know it, too. But I think they pretend like they don’t know it. Many Catholics have argued to me, regarding poor people in poor countries, that they can just hand the baby over for adoption because there are lines of people desperate to adopt. Would the higher-ups in the Vatican hierarchy argue this? I don’t know.
Brian,
Maybe he needed the Corvette to pick up altar boys…
Baby farming, was once a normal legal way out for the poor people of Ireland.
“In his now famous Essay “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick”, written in 1729, Swift merely suggested baby harvesting to rid Ireland of its overpopulation, not setting up baby farms. Initially, many people were shocked by the suggestion of Swift, but his arguments in favor of baby eating won the day, and in 1733, the eating of Irish catholic infants under 1 year of age was legalized by Parliament”
“The spread of Islam into parts of southern and south-east Asia is generally believed to have checked the expansion of baby farming, as that religion frowns on eating children” Wiki.
Islamicism, in this regard, certainly has to be complimented.
Come to think of it -I could easily have landed up one somebody’s plate if it had not been for the 1908 Children Act.
What a delicious thought!
The first quoted passage in bold type is Ian’s, the second is mine.
There is an old saying in Dublin, whereby one is warned not to visit specific working class areas – as it is known by all and sundry there that the residents eat their young. :-)!
Would, I wonder, the higher-ups in the Vatican hierarchy, know anything about baby-farming at all?
I am not talking here about the Jane Austen/Oliver Twist era?