Saturday, March 28, 2015

Droppings from the Catholic Birdcage: "Shouldn't the Synod Documents Label Couples Using Birth Control As 'Wounded'?"

Patrick T. Reardon commenting in National Catholic Reporter on the strange (and more than a little biased) way in which the final statement on the family produced at last year's Catholic synod on the Family talks about "wounded" families:

The people in "wounded" relationships are people whose divergence from church doctrine are out in full public view. The church leaders are able to say: "Oh, these people are doing wrong." 
Yet, those same church leaders turn a blind eye to the way many couples in the canonically acceptable wife-husband marriage have diverged from doctrine, simply because their diver-gence from church teaching -- their sin -- isn't out there in public view.  . . .  
More recently, a 2011 study determined that 87 percent of American Catholic women, regardless of marital status, employed contraceptive methods condemned by the Vatican. In fact, the findings for Catholics were nearly identical to those for American women in general. 
Those who use birth control aren't following church teaching -- like those who divorce and remarry and those who cohabit, whether gay or straight. 
Shouldn't the synod documents label couples using birth control as "wounded"?

Gay families, families headed by same-sex couples: wounded.

Families headed by divorced and remarried parents: wounded.

Because Catholic teaching.

Families with parents using contraception: not wounded.

Because Catholic teaching it's a heck of a lot easier to single out minority groups and the vulnerable, and prove our "Christian" teaching on their backs, when we ourselves don't adhere to said "Christian" teaching. There's all that money the large majority drops in the collection baskets, after all. The coins would stop dropping in a heartbeat if priests preached about the sin of contracepting in Catholic parishes, and if the bishops started trying to prevent the sale and use of contraceptives as a threat to "traditional family" and "traditional family values."

No comments: