The video shows Archbishop Loris Capovilla speaking affectionately about Blessed Pope John XXIII and his decision to call the second Vatican Council. (Lovely Italian with subtitles.) Discuss.
The Archbishop tells of how the Holy Father was encouraged, in the aftermath of the second world war, by the establishment of three international organisations: the UN, FAO and UNESCO. With respect, and with the luxury of hindsight, we might consider this rather optimistic. For example, it was reported the other day that Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN has pushed for abortion in all nations.
Ban Ki-Moon says that we cannot ignore the facts:
“Many young people are sexually active, and, because of this, they may face risks to their health.”That in a nutshell is the humanistic view of sex - a variant of manichaeism: sexual activity is basically a risky inevitability that has to be fixed.
In fact, if two people who are both virgins, are "sexually active" only with each other in a lifelong relationship of marriage, there is no risk to their health. In such a case, sexual activity is good, natural and healthy. So healthy that it often brings new life into being.
It is the other forms of sexual activity that might pose a risk, one that increases in proportion to promiscuity. The answer to this risk is not abortion, "reproductive health services", sex education or condoms, but a return to Christian marriage and the safest sex of all.
8 comments:
In 1976 I moved from London to Galway. In Ireland health care was not free above a certain income and so the company provided private sickness insurance. I asked my future boss if the health insurance covered maternity care, he replied that in Ireland getting pregnant was considered a sign of health. We have come to a very sorry state of affairs.
We should recover humanism for Christianity! There's nothing 'humanistic' in Ban's remarks. They are anti-human. Catholicism is profoundly humanist. Wasn't it Gorbachev who described JPII as a 'profound humanist....a man of the left'? Let's recover humanism from the atheists and anti-humanists.
It's tiresome to read the conspiracy theories of Christian Order, Catholic Truth and Malachi Martin. It's quite clear that this Council's problem lay in the tragedy which was WWII. The Archbishop confirms the obvious. What is baffling is the decision to hold a Council when the war had not been properly terminated.
I see no way back for the Church short of revolution both in Europe and North America.
"if two people who are both virgins, are "sexually active" only with each other in a lifelong relationship of marriage, there is no risk to their health." This is sort-of true unless the pregnancy/ -cies which ensue put the mother at physical risk which is remarkably common. The year my first child was born (2007), there were four babies born into my direct family whose mothers' would have died without direct medical intervention during labour/ birth, my wife included. this leaves aside any social and psychological effects of pregnancy, birth and child-rearing felt by the mother and the whole family (husband included!). We do not dwell in Eden!
Such a situation is not rare and should not be taken lightly, and gets to the point Moon (and Obama and most others) is making: sex and pregnancy are not even vaguely risk-free and radically affect the lives/ life-chances of the child-bearer and the child. Indeed independent of who you are, your race, gender and affluence, your postcode, employment and access decent to education, pregnancy is life-threatening. (These variables do hugely increase the chance a baby will 'complicate' things.) The capacity to avoid pregnancy is therefore an issue of real, absolute justice for the secular world.
I find it interesting that the blogs Christian Order, Catholic Truth and the deceased Fr. Malachi Martin, are called conspiracy theorists. I find them 100% Catholic in what they promote and if both Europe and America rediscover their Catholic roots then the whole world would benefit.
But, as Scripture says "When he (Jesus) comes again, will he find any Faith?"
I read that Saint Faustina was told that she was to be a prophet for the end times and that she was to promote the Divine Mercy as a the means of bringing salvation to many.
A revolution?
Is the Divine Mercy a revolution?
May I be excused for adding a further comment?
I have just received my copy of AD 2000 which is a very solid, truly Catholic magazine, which is publised monthly here in Australia.
One letter quotes that Fr. Malachi Martin once said:- "If all the bishops of the world did their job properly, there would be no need for a pro-life movement"
I don't see him as being a conspiracy theorist!
Once again, I recommend anyone to look at the blogs of Christian Order and Catholic Truth....although the latter may now be Catholic Truth Scotland! The revolution has been tried in America and in the UK and it has shown itself to be a total failure and antithecal to a true revival of Catholicism.
Gillineau - OK there are sometimes complications with pregnancy (and I assure you that I do not take that lightly.)
However, Ban Ki-Moon's suggestion is essentially to provide sterilisation, contraception and abortion and he is presumably aiming primarily at reducing sexually-transmitted infections.
There is also an undertone among population controllers which wants to characterise abortion as being more healthy than pregnancy.
JaRAY
I think you will find that CO and CT are not great advocates of the St. Faustina devotion – this being too Vatican II for their tastes. The pre-Vatican II Church was lukewarm in respect of St. Faustina’s devotion.
Reading their material and interminable attacks on modernism they seem to miss the big picture, namely WWII and the erosion (in practice) of supercessional theology as a direct result of the historical events of 1939-1945. Although Rod Pead (who writes brilliantly) has in recent editorials (towards the end of last year) recognised certain realities about the present historical and political situation in which the Church is attempting to function.
Whether J23 could have understood all these issues back in 1958 is debatable. His opening address at the council suggests that he was aware of concerns (“prophets of doom”) being voiced. As James Hitchcock writes though, these scaremongers would eventually be vindicated. Shane over at Lux Occulta produced a brilliant document written by the then Archbishop Heenan on the eve of the council. The future Cardinal was clearly in the prophets of doom camp. Why was he so concerned? Why had he so little enthusiasm? From where did the fatalism, which characterises the article, emanate? Heenan must have known that something was not right. What was it?
Post a Comment