The weekly “little of this, little of that” feature here at Like Mother, Like Daughter!
Good morning!
The peonies are blooming! They smell like heaven.
I'm itching to get out into the garden, aren't you? Internet, garden. Internet, garden…
By the way, if you have garden-progress pictures, why not share them with us in the upcoming {pretty, happy, funny, real}, the link-up we do every Thursday? You can do a post on your blog or you can link an Instagram picture. I really have nothing interesting to show you other than my garden, so I'll probably be posting about that too. We'd love to see your pictures!
We do have some good links for you!
- I hope this article convinces you to stop with the educational time-wasters. Just have the courage to stop doing pointless or counterproductive things with your kids. The experts are not always right! And there is always an opportunity cost to any choice.
- The Chief and I were just in Paris, and I'm bound to say that its beauty is something to contemplate. Would you and I make a virtue of wartime necessity as the Parisians did?
- I thought you might like to hear a version of a piece we will sing at Mass tomorrow with our little volunteer choir (albeit in a slightly lower key). Many of our choir members are college- and high school- aged! Aim high, my friends! (We do have an amazing director and a wonderful legacy. Start getting yours! You can do it!)
- People are confused, and I fear that even those who look on the Catholic Church from the outside, wondering where she leads if one follows her, find themselves confused. As a loyal Catholic who believes that the Pope represents St. Peter and continues his unbroken line of authority from the very dawn of the formation of the Body of Jesus Christ, I can't pretend that I don't find Pope Francis confusing and sometimes just wrong when his words are tested against the Gospel and the continuous teaching of the institution he ought to defend. There have been bad popes — history shows that clearly. This is not a bad thing — in fact, it demonstrates the indefectibility of her foundation: She will survive and has survived bad popes with her identity intact. Jeff Mirus has identified with admirable clarity and manly spirit just how this present pope has made standing for the truth difficult: On speaking the truth: Is confusion the chief “Francis effect”?
- Speaking of speaking the truth, surrogacy is wrong. Always wrong, evil. It's a kind of sex slavery and the very worst sort of prostitution. Especially if you live in Louisiana, you must read this article, but please read it wherever you are, and share it widely.
- Jennifer Gregory Miller tells us all about the elevation of the celebration of St. Mary Magdalene to the status of feast. As she says, we have until July 22 to think of a nice way to honor her!
- An interesting Facebook page about beauty (and ugliness) in architecture that you might want to follow. This post (without getting into the larger politics of this candidate) made me question why those running for office never pinpoint a specific policy they will change — they only ever say that they are for change itself! Odd. If someone came along and said, “I will change the zoning laws so that beautiful buildings can be built in our city again,” I would be very inclined to vote for him! In our visits to some European cities a few weeks ago, we couldn't help noticing that we — and a bazillion other people — only wanted to see and to be in the old streets, delighting in the old buildings. Despite the huge amounts of money poured into the newer parts of those archetypal places — Rome, Florence, Paris, London — no one wants to go to those. Yet we are doomed to find the ancient charm unrepeatable. We doom ourselves! I thought that this post (on that same FB page) met — and challenged — that reality head on: The Beauty of Craft.
- But — if you want a coherent explanation of why — of the objective reasons — one form of architecture delights the senses while another merely tweaks or offends them — you need this book: The Way of Beauty, by David Clayton. Bonus: It will help you figure out how to educate your older children in classical principles.
- A funny send-up of music videos (although I admit that I find this form of music, even as parody, grating after about 3 seconds — if you ever want to know how to torture me, here you go):
From the archives:
- The feast of the nativity of John the Baptist is coming up. I wrote about ways to celebrate it here (ignore the giveaway info, although of course the books are still relevant!).
- And just before that, Father's Day is coming! Don't miss our truly epic gift-giving guide! Lots of great ideas there. By the way, you can use any Amazon link of ours to do any of your shopping on that site. When you do, we get a small portion. Thank you! This one works as well:
- I did get my Spirit of the Liturgy post up yesterday. How is your reading going? Let us know in the comments to that post!
Happy feast of St. Barnabas! (Yes, we just use the word “feast” generically, even though it has a specific meaning — see, above, the link to the article about St. Mary Magdalene.)
Elizabeth says
Thanks for sharing these! As always, a very thought-provoking selection. The link to the article on Pope Francis doesn’t appear to be working, although it may just be my computer (it’s been difficult lately). Have a happy weekend!
Leila says
Elizabeth, I thought I was extra-careful about checking the links this week, sigh. It’s fixed now.
Mary Lou says
Mary, Undoer of Knots, untie any doubt that the Holy Spirit, that You are taking perfect care that in these new times we continue to grow together toward an even deeper knowledge of God as Father, also recognizing that true faith is not knowledge, but childlike trust in the Father. Ita Pater. Amen
Carol Kennedy says
Thanks again for the weekly links. I always look forward to them.
As a former school teacher and current homeschooler I was very interested in the list of time wasters. And I agree with most of them, though I was surprised at number 4, “unsupported” reading time. I used it a lot in my classroom and I still use it at home. Though I think the way to make it useful is to carefully cultivate the library that the kids use (which they did mention). But, “feedback to students on their reading, and text discussion or other post-reading response activities” sound like a lot of lingo for killing the fun of reading. Maybe “teacher takes casual interest in what students are reading and occasionally initiates conversations” would be more useful. I always felt that my after lunch half hour of reading (read aloud + silent reading) was one of the most helpful things my students did to build a love of reading—which is probably the most important thing to get from school.
Caitlin says
That part was surprising to me too!
Leila says
Carol (and Caitlin): I agree.
I think this is open to interpretation. As you know, I’m for curated reading. If there is a crate of good books and you say to the kids, “Now we will read,” then you will get great reading from them.
What I see is parents enforcing a 1/2 hour reading time (because they are told to) and for everyone, it’s a chore.
How different from a day where there is simply a rhythm and at some point, things slow down and everyone reads…
All of which to say, it’s not going to work to have some sort of program!
Caitlin says
Yes, excellent links this week! Although I second that the Francis link does not seem to be working.
I had no idea there was organized political resistance to surrogacy, but I completely agree with it (the resistance, I mean). I know of a lady, a very nice young woman who is friends with several of my friends, who lost her uterus and her full-term infant, her firstborn, because of a sudden rupture. They later used a surrogate to have a son. I’ve always know I would never do that (I just couldn’t justify the cost, when there are already babies in the world who need an adoptive home… and yes, I know adoption is not free or cheap. But to achieve a surrogate pregnancy, don’t you have to conceive several embryos, knowing some will not make it? If life begins at conception, that is no better than abortion!) Yet, even knowing all that, I admit that I can’t bring myself to share the article in case my friend should see it. She is such a sweet, Christian woman and has been through a lot of pain.
But deep down, I agree… I think the CS Lewis references in the article were spot-on. We are, with the best of intentions, clinically de-humanizing mothers and commodifying babies. Yet I do it too. If I did struggle with infertility, or if I do in the future, I know it would be difficult for me to accept the idea that I am not entitled to a(nother) child. Lots of food for thought here.
Leila says
Caitlin, I think we have to accept that we may suffer. And maybe this idea of suffering — and accepting suffering, renouncing “entitlement” — is the gift we have to offer others. Maybe we need to practice in the little things.
You don’t have to share any particular article, of course. It’s worth thinking through, though, whether our neighbor’s “sweetness” or “good intentions” are affecting our witness to the truth or leading us to withhold the truth — even our disagreement — from her. Think of it this way: do you want your children to grow up to think that surrogacy is okay? Or, if you were erring in some way, would you want people to refrain from telling the truth out of a sense of not wanting to hurt you?
That said, there are different ways to tell the truth. Only you know how to go about it. You will pray and the Holy Spirit will guide you. Sometimes it isn’t about sharing an article at all. No one can tell you how to do this, only that we have a duty to the truth. Maybe it’s related to that suffering, and being a witness to suffering, that I was mentioning…
Caitlin says
Yes, I agree completely. I remember another link from a few weeks back on “moral cowardice!” I just meant that a casual post on social media would not be appropriate in my situation.
Ellen says
Here’s the article about pope francis.
https://www.catholicculture.ocfm?id=677
I have to say i don’t the author’s conclusions or even his framing of the problem. The section of a homily he uses as an example doesn’t seem to have enough context to tell what the pope was talking about. And being that our Pope so often speaks as a pastor rather than a theologian, I am very careful when reading any news report about something he has said.
While I agree that relativism is a big problem in our modern world, including the thinking of some within the church, I have yet to hear the Pope actually teach that wrong is right. Anything he has said that is very confusing such as the zika virus controversy he has later spoken more clearly on when he said that birth control is never to be used.
I think we forget and our media isn’t aware, that this Pope is not American and not European. In fact I think his primary audience for much of what he says are people who think and act very differently from middle class Americans. He seems to often be speaking to either those in the third world who experienced extreme poverty or those in the church hierarchy. These groups may well need to hear a message of mercy, of looking through (not around as in just ignoring) the rules to the truth of the person, and the fundamental gospel of Jesus’ deep love for each of us. Come to think of it maybe we all need that message
Maria says
I like this.
Stephanie says
Thank you Ellen. This comment gave me much to think anout.
Mrs. B. says
Ellen, your interpretation is very charitable, but even you can’t really prove that this is in fact what Pope Francis is doing or has in mind. I would say that a generic airplane interview or a homily during a normal daily Mass, for instance, are not the right tools to send a specific message to a specific group of faithful, unless that’s spelled out. Part of the problem is that Francis almost never makes clear just whom he’s addressing.
I would also say that the dichotomy Pastor vs. Theologian is one we should be very careful with. It smells too much of that false choice of Practice vs. Doctrine that so many are trying to pass for sensible. It undermines the unity of the Faith and the universality of Jesus’s teachings.
You say that, since the Pope is from Argentina, perhaps his focus is different – I am not sure I can see the logical connection there. This statement would seem to imply that, by contrast, Pope St. John Paul II, or any other European Pope in any other time, in virtue of their origins, obviously must have been focused on the concerns of “middle class America” – which is something I hardly think you would want to say!
Finally, Dr. Mirus is most definitely not saying that Pope Francis has formally taught that something wrong is in fact right. He even says this is actually a very real consolation, that the Holy Spirit will not permit that!
Lisa G. says
Mrs. B – we cannot know his intentions either way. St. Therese, when she saw one of her fellow nuns doing something against the rule, would make an excuse for her in her mind. Because she didn’t know, and because she didn’t want to be judging her. We can make judgments on what the Holy Father sometimes says (while wondering if the reportage has anything to do with the confusion) but we can’t judge him over it. Or, we’re not supposed to, although it’s such an easy thing to fall into. I suppose that’s what Ellen is trying to do. One knows he’s a decent man, and so one tries to cast about for an unknown reason for his ways, which are often surprising to us. I don’t think it serves much purpose to be actively criticizing him, without first stating “the reason I’m bringing this up is because…” Otherwise, what is the point, when we don’t know what his problem is?
Mrs. B. says
Lisa, you are right: we don’t know his intentions. That was my point, and that in itself is a very puzzling thing indeed. If no one clearly understands which words are addressed to whom, or why some words are chosen instead of others, or why some acts are performed differently than ever before, the results cannot be but puzzling. To acknowledge this puzzlement while trying to understand what the Pope is saying, as Dr. Mirus was doing in the article, does not necessarily mean to actively criticize the Pope without reason.
This reminds me of an episode in Brideshead Revisited: a Jesuit priest is instructing one of the characters in the Catholic faith, and one day he says, What if the Pope said it was going to rain, but then it wouldn’t rain? The character answers that it would be a spiritual kind of rain, and our sins are what make us unable to see it. The poor Jesuit priests can only shake his head…
Being humble, obedient, a loving member of the Church and respectful of the office of the Papacy does not mean to think it always impossible or always impious to wonder about the Pope. Pope Francis himself has personally acknowledged how useful a well grounded and well meaning criticism is to him!
Mrs. B. says
I forgot to address your point about St. Therese, who was humility in flesh and blood. Yes, she was always ready to believe the best of intentions, but she was not trying to deny or pretend that the breaking of a rule happened. It is quite different.
Leila says
Yes, Mrs. B, you are right. It’s interesting that this subject always devolves into the Pope’s intentions. Meanwhile, doctrine is going under the bus, for real.
Lisa G. says
“Formerly, when I saw a Sister doing something which displeased me and appeared to be against the Rule, I said to myself: ‘Ah! if I could only tell her what I think and show her she is wrong, how much good this would do me!’ Ever since I have practiced the trade of correcting, I assure you, dear Mother, that I have entirely changed my attitude. When it happens that I see a Sister perform an action which appears imperfect to me, I heave a sigh of relief and say: ‘How fortunate! this is not a novice; I am not obliged to correct her.’ I then very quickly take care to excuse the Sister and to give her the good intentions she undoubtedly has.” – from Story of a Soul, trans. by John Clarke O.C.D.
Therese says “appears imperfect” what she knows was imperfect, but she is refusing to encourage in herself any thoughts of judgment.
I am not wanting to defend his words – I’m just saying why bring it up just in order to criticize? If I were with others, and they were to mention something he’s said which seemed opposite of what they’d thought was Catholic teaching, there would be an opportunity for me to say something like: I don’t know why he said this, the Catechism says such-and-such. I hope he isn’t a bad Pope, but perhaps we’re misunderstanding him, etc.” This may very well sound naive, but it would serve to remind the hearers that the Pope isn’t the final authority on doctrine, and keep people from getting indignant against him, from slipping into a spirit of criticism, etc. Otherwise, why bring it up? I hope, hope, HOPE that this man, who seems so kind towards unfortunates of every kind, isn’t going to have to pay a heavy price on the last day because he caused confusion among the faithful, because he will! Pay, I mean.
I also think the confusion mostly arises among those who are nominal Christians anyway; they are only too happy to believe the easier thing. The serious ones won’t so easily be swayed into another way of thinking. If Catholics would just remember that it isn’t the Pope of the moment who determines the Faith, it’s the Magisterium. Look in the Catechism.
Anyway, Mrs. B., and Leila, I love you both. 🙂
Mrs. B. says
I love you too, Lisa, and I love our back-and-forths (or backs-and-forths???)!
Unfortunately, my own experience is that even serious Catholics will often be confused, and as Leila was saying, many are ready to forget what the Faith has always been, if it sounds different from what the Holy Father is saying, because it’s too much to have to acknowledge the contrast. The articulation of the Faith, which is doctrine!, suddenly becomes “the rules”, and of course “the rules” can change, and “the rules” should not be our master, and we even have those who contrast “the rules” with “what the Gospel really says”… It is very discouraging to hear people speak like this: I feel we’re insulting the memory of so many Saints who labored to pass the Faith on intact, not to mention the many martyrs who died for “the rules”. By the way, I am not saying this is how you speak! I understand the point you’re trying to make. I would only remind you that “to judge” can simply mean to exercise our reasoning and discerning faculties, examining what is before our eyes, and not necessarily to pass judgement on a person. We have plenty of bold saints whose mission was one of correction, and no one of course suspect they were just gossiping and being proud and judgmental in their corrections.
I do agree though that we have to talk to people very carefully, and not scandalize anyone. I also obviously agree that we should mind more the Catechism than an airplane interview.
Lisa G. says
Backandforths, perhaps. 🙂 What is really at the root of my issue is that I have no authority to correct every thing he says. I have a duty to speak up when opportunity arises, but only then. I don’t need to be bringing it up myself. (please don’t imagine I never go around spouting off about things, though!)
Otherwise, I see entirely what you’re saying. As for our dear Leila, her hubby is a journalist, and it’s their job to be analyzing what people say, so this is her world. But I feel it is unseemly for me to be pointing out this and that with regard to others’ actions. Without an invitation. (otherwise, I’m very opinionated – ask anyone who knows me!)
Mrs. B. says
Lisa, it seems we’ve reached the bottom of the “Reply” rabbit trail!
I just wanted to say I wish you were my neighbor!
Leila says
Mrs. B and Lisa, love you both 🙂
Make no mistake, people are reeling in confusion. I’ve already personally experienced confusion and quick action in the sphere of marriage — confusion upon confusion, people making decisions seriously lacking in responsibility, seriously undermining their children’s faith, all in the name of our pope. I’ve heard priests give erroneous information about the faith, leading with, “As Pope Francis says.”
There’s a big difference between putting up with others’ foibles and refusing to defend the truth. We have to take care lest we become enablers of error. Sometimes we have to say to the father: We respect you but you are seriously wrong here.
Lisa G. says
If you’ve got first hand experience of folks you know who are going astray (so to speak) as a result of his words, then that’s enough to drive a person to speak out, surely! But I haven’t had that.
Leila says
My concern is not about Pope Francis per se — I mean, the state of his soul. I pray for him of course. My concern is about the objective confusion. Even his so-called “clarifications” are nothing of the sort. The zika discussion still hangs there in all its terrible implications.
The sum total of this papacy is confusion. Whether we are talking about the words of Jesus Christ on marriage, the state of the Vatican economy, or the position of the Church on sodomy, we are in a state where, if we defend Church teachings, the person we are speaking with can and will say, “Pope Francis says we have to be merciful and not to judge.”
This hasn’t been the case in our lifetime. Before now, we could say (and think) that the Pope had our back and more importantly, the back of doctrine. As much as this might scandalize you for me to say this, it’s far more scandalous for the faithful to think that objective truth can be changed to fit the times.
Ellen says
Beautifully written. Thank you.
Ellen says
This response is for Ellen’s response.
Ellen says
This is also beautifully written and what I want to carry in my heart on my pilgrimage with my son to World Youth Day. Thank you Mary Lou!
Janet says
Leila, thank you for bringing up the concept of “opportunity cost”. I’m not joking when I say that this was the most important concept I learned in grad school. Of course in business school, it was applied to scenarios like manufacturing management – if you put all your resources into making red widgets, you cannot make any blue widgets, etc.
But when you think about this, you can apply it to your life every single day. It helps me to make decisions on what to do and also how to value my time. If I constantly say “Yes” every time I am asked to volunteer because “it’s only for a few hours”, I am giving up the opportunity to work on more important matters or even my much larger goals.
Kelsey says
What a great round-up of links! I love the ones about architecture, especially, and I believe that they tie in perfectly with the articles on truth and human dignity. Beauty is important! Humans fail without it. There is such a tyranny of efficiency these days, and the ugliness that results – in architecture, decor, fashion, art, everything aesthetic – is truly depressing. There is a small set of apartments near our parish – I believe they are subsidized housing, but I’m actually not sure. They are definitely lower-income housing. But instead of the dreary concrete blocks I see everywhere, they are cheerful and traditional New England-style townhomes. They have front porches and mature trees in the yard, and common grassy areas. They are a delight to drive or walk past, and they seem to be much better kept than the other lower-income housing in our town! No random stuff left in the yards, they are tidy and happy. I think it’s because the people who live there must love their homes and take pride in them. I’ve been happy see quite a few small children there; what a wonderful neighborhood in which to grow up.
Ann says
Dear Leila,
I enjoy reading about your lovely family, but admit to being foxed by your comments regarding Pope Francis. Although I have been a Christian since I was 19,I did not enter the church until 2010.Therefore,especially as a British Catholic, I struggle to understand your misgivings, having been taught that the pope, although, human, was infallible.
I do understand a previous comment acknowledging Pope Francis as neither European or American.
Also that he understands some of the poorest people in the world.
Very kind regards,
Ann Marie
Leila says
Ann Marie — hopefully now that I’ve fixed the link, you can read the article.
It’s not quite right to express the pope as “although human, infallible.” He is human. He is certainly fallible! His words are infallible when he teaches with the mind of the church “ex cathedra” — making pronouncements which are very carefully limited and defined.
His every statement is not infallible. You can read more about this here: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm
The point of the article was to tackle this pope’s confusion. He preaches every single day. He speaks at length on planes and at various venues. He has written several documents. And as Jeff Mirus says, the sum total of what the faithful receive is, simply put, confusion.
I don’t want to unsettle anyone who is unaware of this or who can reconcile his words to their faith. But many, many people — including good non-Catholics — are having their faith shaken because of him. Thus, I think it’s vital to address the situation.
Audrey says
I am surprised to see you referring to Pope Francis as if he were a bad pope; following that with a description of surrogacy as “the worst sort of prostitution?” I’ve not been afraid to speak up about surrogacy as wrong, but I would certainly not describe it as that. Have you ever met or spent time with a prostitute? And Pople Francis is a bad pope? I’m just kind of stunned. Please explain if you mean these things seriously; at the moment I’m in complete disagreement with you. I usually don’t disagree with your blog and enjoy it as edifying, based on sound philosophy etc., but oof! not today!
Leila says
Audrey, I’m sorry if I’ve surprised you. I understand that my words could seem shocking. To address your concerns:
1. Despite my best efforts, somehow the brain fog took over and the link wasn’t there. I did fix it now. Perhaps if you read the essay you will understand why I posted it.
I said that there have been bad popes. That is a fact that perhaps can console those who find this pope confusing. I did not call him bad — we shall see. Maybe people will call me bad! Only time will tell.
The point of my comments and of Jeff Mirus’ essay is that he is confusing.
As I said above, many people of good faith are shaken by the continual, even daily, issuance of confusion from the seat of Peter, culminating in the Pope’s refusal to clearly defend the words of Our Lord in the Gospel regarding the permanence of marriage.
Jeff Mirus — and he is someone who has been apologizing for Pope Francis and defending him — explained exactly how it is. As I said, there have been Popes in history who have not had the best interest of the faithful at heart. There has even been a heretical pope. He was truly pope, but he said what is not true! Had we lived then, we would have had to stand for the truth! Yes, we can and must do that! If we are living in one of those times, I would like to be on the side of clarity and of the Gospel. Would you say that he is a good pope? (This is a different question from whether he is a good person, has good intentions, etc.) I cannot say that he is.
And I think that people who are confused deserve to know that there is simple truth and we can stand up for it. Right now I pray for him and offer sacrifices for him; my concern is to set up a field hospital (as he puts it) to treat those who are suffering because suddenly the truth seems in question.
2. How do you define prostitution? Here is what the Catechism says:
“2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.”
Until now, technology has not really been available to scale surrogacy. But now we can do it — and in fact, surrogacy is a multi-billion dollar business. The facade of the happy couple holding a bouncing baby hides the horrible human cost, with whole villages in India and elsewhere dedicated as human factories, with women no more than sex slaves.
Thus, I think we can take this definition and consider an important question: can one prostitute sexuality if pleasure is not involved?
Sexuality and personhood are intertwined, “inextricably tied,” as Saint John Paul said. We speak of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality. The unitive aspect brings pleasure with it — this is a gift of God. And that’s what we think of when we think of prostitution — the buying and selling of that pleasure.
But the end or goal of sexuality is the procreative. (I actually think that you can’t separate the two, but for philosophical purposes you can identify the different aspects and think of them separately.)
What we’ve pretty much forgotten is that *having a child is a sexual act* — in fact it is the goal of the sexual act, the coming together of a man and a woman — it belongs — inextricably!! — to the person’s sexuality. Being paid or paying to use the body to make a child is a perversion of the *sexual act*. Thus, it is a form of prostitution.
Think of it this way: Every act has two, not one, perversions. There is a scale with two ends. We eat. The goal of eating is nutrition, and pleasure is involved (because God is good to us and it suits him to give us this pleasure). We think of gluttony as perverting the pleasure aspect. But starving oneself is also gluttony! It’s the other end of the scale. And it is worse, in that it precisely targets the end, or goal, of eating.
Thus, perverting sexuality must have two ends on the scale. And they are both called prostitution, just as both deliberate starvation and over-eating are gluttony.
People think of surrogacy as some kind of act of kindness that a woman bestows on her infertile neighbors. That’s the rhetoric that we’ve been fed. The truth is that some women were duped into thinking they could help people by sinning against the sixth commandment, and others were duped into thinking they could make money this way. Some women truly have no other way to make money. Because of the demand for babies, millions of women are enslaved, selling their bodies as surely as a sex-worker sells hers.
We’ve taken the most intimate form of relationship and the sanctuary of the womb and turned it into a mall.
We’ve reduced the woman to a machine for making babies, as if her body is separate from her sexuality. We frown on a man buying sexual pleasure from a woman, but are teaching ourselves to smile when he buys a baby from her.
And what of the child conceived this way? Surrogacy is a kind of prostitution (payment for sexuality) that has as its direct aim the begetting of a child who will be in one sort of limbo or another as to his parentage. It’s this that makes me call it the worst kind of prostitution. As we normally think of prostitution, at least a child is not the goal of the act. It’s like we’ve taken all our burdens and laid them on the child.
Pope Benedict said this of IVF (without which, of course, surrogacy can’t take place):
“Catholic teaching prohibits in vitro fertilization, maintaining that a child has the right to be conceived in the marital embrace of his parents. Human sexuality has two components, the unitive and procreative; IVF separates these components and makes the procreative its only goal. Pope Paul VI said that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”
“There are other issues involved. IVF makes the child a commodity produced in a laboratory, and makes doctors, technicians, and even business people part of the conception process. The sperm used is usually obtained by masturbation, which the Church teaches is immoral. [Let’s stop and ask ourselves how we would feel to know that our dad begat us by going into a room with dirty magazines and, you know… *on purpose*] The sperm or eggs used may not come from the couple desiring the child; because one of the spouses may be infertile, it may be necessary to use the sperm or eggs from an outsider. Most of the embryos conceived—which the Church holds should be respected new human lives—die, are frozen indefinitely for later implantation, are used for research, or are discarded. Children conceived through IVF also have a greater incidence of birth defects.
“The bottom line is that the Church views the child as a gift from God, not a right (although the child has rights). For more information on Catholic teaching on the issue, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2373-2379.”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1774/church_teaching_on_in_vitro_fertilization.aspx
Audrey says
Leila-
Thank you for the thorough and timely reply! I appreciate it.
I did read (and re-read) the essay; I don’t think Pope Francis is advocating that we not stand up for the truth. He is advocating against rigidity, though, I agree this is one of his “pet theories.” It is one thing to correctly diagnose the tyrrany of moral relativism, but it is another to prescribe the correct treatment. Pope Francis is trying to help us see rigidity is not the correct treatment. This is shocking us, it seems disordered particularly if we are not convinced that people can recognize the disease first. Moral relativism has already left an enormous wake of destruction (for how many decades?) and I think Pope Francis is moving on to discuss the right treatment. I don’t agree at all with the author that “Nonetheless, even a fifth-grader can see how easily this constant emphasis can (and will) be confused with the very legitimate effort to distinguish truth from error, not only metaphysically but morally.” We don’t need to flip flop between relativism and rigidity; advocating against one extreme is not equivalent to advocating for the opposite extreme.
Dr. Mirus starts out “Speaking the truth is perfectly compatible with charity,” but we can pick this apart a bit. How “perfectly?” Certainly the two are not equivocal. Certainly there are ways we can say something true and be uncharitable at the same time. I myself do this to my spouse all too often, and he reminds me “truth can be used like a sledgehammer.”
Learning how to speak the truth with love is the crux of it; Pope Francis saying “Jesus knows how to accompany us.” When we are bumping into adulterous women at the well, how are we handling it?
I think his message is more for my generation than yours. (I’m in the middle of a pack of 8 siblings that line up probably fairly closely with your children.) I do see this rigidity as a growing problem in my peers. We’ve grown up in the decay brought on by relativism, and there is a fear-based rigidity that is plagueing my generation. Perhaps as an overreaction? There are so many who would just never go to the same well as the adulterous woman- they don’t want to interact with prostitutes, they won’t even interact with ‘bad catholics.’ (I’m joking a bit, but not totally).
I would also say the media is trying to carve Pope Francis in its own image. This certainly causes confusion. Pope Benedict was an extremely careful teacher, and so wonderfully academic as well, but they did this with him too. (Something to do with using condoms in Africa?)
I do think he speaks a lot about the permanence of marriage in ‘Amoris Laetitia”-
Anyway, long story short- I really love Pope Francis! I feel so blessed to have grown up under the papacy of these last three popes. I see a beautiful continuity in their messages. Pope Francis is kind of reminding me of JPII’s ‘Be not afraid!!”
On to the other issue, although the end of naptime is limiting me, I really appreciate the way you fleshed that out. I was surprised at the description as the ‘worst sort’ of prostitution. The prostitutes I have met (via maternity homes and homeless work etc.) are at the point of almost complete disintegration; hard to imagine getting much worse. I see surrogacy as a fall-out from the contraceptive error; a further manifestation of the objectification of women (even by women!) literally machinizing and commodifying; fertility being turned on or off, bought & sold. I see what you are saying there about the perversion; not sure about the pleasure vs pain issue though as what a prostitute or person with an eating disorder feels. God gives us pleasure in good acts, not as the goal but just so that we may enjoy it; I actually don’t think gluttonous or starving people feel pleasure in their overating/undereating, and so with prostitution. I think there is a fair amount of pain involved by the thwarting of Gods intentions. I’m hoping I get a chance to write back about this later on today.
Thanks again for the response; I do appreciate your blog. As a side note, my uncle/godfather is also a co-founder of Christendom, along with Dr. Mirus, so the circles we run in collide at other points =)
God Bless.
Leila says
Audrey, I appreciate your willingness to interact 🙂 I am familiar with how things are going with your generation, and I am also very familiar with how the media plays Pope Francis.
The bottom line for me is that he has made a mania of attacking the doctors of the law to the point that he is now saying that we can’t insist on the truth. This is not about HOW we tell the truth. It’s about stating the truth. The Church has always taught that the Holy Spirit will give us the words (this is in Scripture). If we are now at the point where we feel that we must not speak, then something is wrong. I choose Scripture.
Rigidity is not the problem of the present generation. On the contrary.
As to the issue of prostitution, note well that whether we are speaking of prostitutes in the usual sense of the term or of surrogacy, the catechism speaks of women primarily as victims, and I agree with that, of course. The pleasure aspect is to say that selling one’s body for sex implies a perversion of pleasure. That no one is really obtaining pleasure seems clear — this is the effect of sin, that we do not get what we think we are getting.
When one eats to excess, one is distorting the pleasure of eating (or feeling full). That it isn’t actually pleasurable should not surprise us. Yet, that is what is happening. It’s the pleasure that is being distorted.
In the case of surrogacy, it’s the sexual nature of the person that is being perverted. Not for pleasure, but for sex’s other goal or end, procreation.
I am using these terms in their technical senses. I hope that I’m being clear; I fear I am not. My point is simply that surrogacy is a perversion of the sexual act per se. We don’t recognize that, exactly, because we are used to focusing on the pleasure part of sex, but of course, the procreation part is the goal or end of sex.
Audrey says
Hello Leila!
I think we are probably more in agreement than not over surrogacy; I balked at your phrasing it as the ‘worst form of prostitution’ because I thought you were referring to it causing worse harm to the soul… Later you fleshed it out as that it is worse because it voilates the procreative goal of the sexual act, rather than the unitive. Point taken. By that logic though, you would also have to phrase contraception as the “worst form of prositution.’ In reality, generally prostitution is violating all aspects of the sexual act, with everything else that usually gets mixed in with it. (vasectomies, abortions, sterilizations etc.), but I do see the point you were making now.
Our opinion of Pope Francis is more likely something we might just have to agree to disagree on. I do not agree that he is saying there is no truth, or that we should not stand up for truth. I know we do not want him to speak in a sloppy, hasty, irresponsible way, and we have the duty to not draw (very important) conclusions in that way either. Dr. Mirus did not reference the paragraph he took from the homily- it seems more like a description of a pastoral approach for how to spread the truth. He is very focused on a missionary call- how to spread the good news, how to spread the truth!
We may also need to agree to disagree about rigidity as a problem. I’m not saying it is happening in the majority, but among those ‘to whom much has been given.’ The faithful who were raised with true faith, given a good education etc., are “turning inwards” (another pet theme of Pope Francis.) Often wasting energy counting who among them is the greatest =) They are afraid to deal with the moral mess which charitable work always involves. I do see this as a problem, and it is quite tragic. They should be the laborers for the harvest. I think this missionary focus of his papacy is quite important for a generation that is wondering if the Church might need to go underground. He is trying to embolden us and send us out.
Alright, thats it for now. God Bless!
Leila says
Audrey, contraception is very bad — intrinsically bad. It’s not prostitution because nothing is for sale. Prostitution is about selling one’s body for sex. Up until now, it has concerned the unitive aspect. Sadly, technology has made it possible for it to concern the procreative aspect.
Surrogacy is a direct attack on the meaning of the body. It makes the body into a machine. It’s truly evil, striking at the heart of what it means to be a human being, and leaving a child to deal with the aftermath. Intentionally.
Mirus did reference the part of the talk regarding objective truth, relegating it to some unreachable corner that doesn’t concern us. It’s there at the beginning:
<< It is not Catholic [to say] “or this or nothing:” This is not Catholic, this is heretical. Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: “But do that up to the point that you are capable.” And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.>>
Mirus later followed up with another trenchant column: The serious danger of idealizing the Christian life: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1395
Pope Francis’ continued insistence (including in Amoris Laetitia) that Christianity is an ideal that can’t be put into practice (Mirus defines “ideal” by the way) seriously goes against Church teaching (please note the final paragraph!):
John Paul II, 1993 Encyclical Veritatis Splendor:
Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the “concrete” possibilities of man. “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question.” But what are the “concrete possibilities of man”? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values. (VS, 103-104)
Dixie says
Audrey, I agree with you that rigidity is a problem for a certain sector of Catholics.
Would you agree with me, though, that the problematic rigidity is usually not regarding matters of truth — magisterial teaching — but about prudential matters (e.g. skirts v. pants!! oh, my)? That is the rigidity that concerns me, not adherence to moral teaching on something like marriage, where I would say the only adjustments should be made in seeking to be more charitable in *how* we proclaim the truth (getting better at speaking the truth in love) — not in attempting to sidestep the truth, which I fear some people are now doing based on the Holy Father’s comments.
We can discuss prudential matters, and it is good to do so, but we are not bound to make a certain decision on pain of sin. I have seen young adults (college age and just after), especially, really lose their way here, declaring, for example, that if a woman wears pants, she is not really Catholic; if you receive in the hand, you are sinning (not just doing something that some of us think — however good our reasons — ought not to be allowed, but actually *sinning*); if you don’t say the rosary daily (maybe you say the Divine Office instead!!) you clearly do not love God; if a father gets up at night with a baby, his wife is not being a good Catholic (she should let him sleep all night every night, no matter what).
But I think that most of the people who are afflicted with this outgrow it over time and with experience.
On the other hand, refusing to compromise about the real teachings of the church is in fact a merciful sort of rigidity.
Mary Lou says
Articulating is not my gift, but all the beautiful articulating and quoting in the world (which has the power to persuade), can be highly subjective if you are looking for the truth by the law and not by the Gospel. “Looking through the rules to the human person” is the spirit of this Holy Father and of growth in the Church and an objective truth given to us by Saint Pope John Paul II even at Vatican II. This is not a conservative/liberal issue unless you make it so. It is, if we are receptive, the very place where this chosen man is giving his life, in all of his humanness and humility (most likely because of this, He can be God’s instrument) to answer the heresy of our time which is anthropologic – concerning the human person.
In all the cultures of the world, the human person does not know what it means to be human any longer. It’s lost. No model of what a Child of God looks like (it’s what you do capture on LMLD) and what it means to love and be loved by a Father. Of course God’s first plan was that we learn this from our own father, but with the breakdown of the family in our century, that does not exist either. This dimension is new to the Church this century, because of the Fatherlessness of our culture, of our time. Pope Francis is pastor, theologian, but first a Father to us.
The rules, when they are applied with a heart that doesn’t consider this first, can separate many from the love of God. The first objective truth of our Catholic faith is that God loved us first and is our Father. A person becomes a saint the minute he knows he/she is loved. Then the rules are loved and even longed for and ‘easy’ to follow.
As for the manliness of the essay, yes it was very manly. Human. As it is human for everyone to doubt that God holds the reigns, that He has taken care to give us just what we need as we live through the collapse of our Country, a culture of death and go about raising our families in the midst of it, not in spite of what we may suffer, but exactly because of it. We have a Father Pope. The deepest need of our time and God’s gift to us.
Rather than suspecting, and especially criticizing this God-given Father who leads first by the Gospel can we not be open and trust allowing the Holy Spirit to begin this work that is much more about the ‘fundamental Gospel of Jesus’ Love,’ a new impulse for our times of His Mercy (beautiful Mass readings yesterday), there is nothing that can separate us from his love. We have a long way to go and even longer if this law of the rules rather than the law of the Gospel sentiment exists at all. We answer all the evil we are surrounded by, in living the Gospel, not by heralding the rules as if these are first of all the salvation of the world. They are, they are static, they are also dynamic throughout salvation history, as history has proven.
Pope Francis is the Holy Father of Hope, of Joy and it will take more than his lifetime, our lifetimes to rebuild from where we are and where we are heading quickly. Our Church is in such a need of this Hope and Joy and of course growth is always confusing. Can we not trust rather than offer criticism that only leads to more confusion and even division where we are all One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic?
Alicia Rogers says
I agree with you completely, Mary Lou.
Leila says
Mary Lou, we trust in God. History shows us that we must be ever vigilant. History shows us that there have been bad popes. What if you had lived in a time when a pope spoke out against Jesus’ divine nature? This has happened! If by trust you mean not speak up, then I disagree, I’m afraid.
We can be enablers of error. That would be wrong.
The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. We are so if we are united to Christ as her head. If Christ says one thing and someone else says the opposite, with whom do you go?
Leila says
Also, beware of thinking that there is a “new” way to be a Christian — a way apart from the way Jesus teaches us in the Gospel and the way that the Church has shown us. It’s possible for *any* human being, whoever he may be, to depart from the Way. Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. His Church is His body. We can be loyal to the Pope only by following Him.
Anel says
Hi, Leila
I was looking forward to listening to the choir piece, but it doesn’t want to work.
Thanks and God Bless
🙂
Leila says
Anel, it works for me… not sure what to tell you.
It is Benedicam Dominum by Orlando di Lasso performed by sacrae cantiones if you want to find it yourself on You Tube.
Mary says
Thank you all so much for this lovely and so very important conversation. I feel so blessed to have the opportunity to learn and grow in love, mercy, and faith. I rarely comment, and never to this beautiful blog, but I truly have enjoyed listening to the heartfelt words expressed. Thank you all for sharing.
Leila says
Thank you, Mary! God bless you!