Pope Francis gets pretty chatty on the papal plane.
He’s talked to reporters about jobs, homosexuality and women’s role in the church. He’s spoken out about the War in Iraq and terrorism. He’s even addressed his own retirement. And on his flight back from the Philippines this week, he started chatting about the church’s position on birth control, saying some think that to be good Catholics, “we have to be like rabbits.”
Here’s [sic] his exact words from the Vatican Insider:
I believe that three children per family, from what the experts say, is the key number for sustaining the population. The key word here is responsible parenthood and each person works out how to exercise this with the help of their pastor. … Sorry, some people think that in order to be good Catholics we have to breed like rabbits, right? Responsible parenthood: This is why there are marriage support groups in the Church with people who are experts on such issues; and there are pastors and I know that there are many acceptable solutions that have helped with this. And another thing: For poor people, children are a treasure, prudence is needed here too, it is true. Responsible parenthood but also recognizing the generosity of that father or mother who see their child as a treasure.
He referenced a woman he met several months ago who was pregnant with her eighth child after going through seven Cesarean sections.
“That is an irresponsibility!” he said, saying she might argue that she should trust in God. “But God gives you methods to be responsible.”
He talked about “licit” birth control methods approved by the church, alluding to tracking a woman’s cycle to avoid unplanned pregnancies.
I love this man. He is dragging The Church kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I expect many of the old moss back priests probably want to oust him. That would be a shame. It is so refreshing to see a spiritual leader who is in touch with worldly problems.
Should we expect to see real change happen within the Catholic Church under Pope Francis? He seems to be suggesting that some of these man-made absolutes really are not to be taken literally. Will he issue a decree or will he infuse more modern thinking in a trickle-down fashion? Should we expect change when it comes to married priests, birth control, gay rights within the church, women in the clergy?
Change is often slow in a religion which is a secondary culture. Old traditions die hard. I know old ladies who still eat fish on Fridays and cover their heads in church. They will do this until they die. It’s tradition.
Your thoughts?
Well, that’s progress.
I’m glad that God whispered in his ear and told him to interpret doctrine this way. God seems to be getting a bit smarter.
The part that is funny is that Pope Francis hasn’t said anything that is inconsistent with what John Paul II or Benedict XVI has said on any of these issues. It’s a ‘old wine in new skins’ thing. You like the messenger a lot more and so are more accepting of the message.
You aren’t going to see any significant changes in the Catholic Church’s position on married priests, birth control, gay rights within the church or women in the clergy in the near future. What you may see is people begin to understand what the Catholic Church’s actual position is.
Married priests: There are already married Catholic priests. I’ve met one. Admittedly they are very rare, but there is nothing doctrinal against married priests. It may be commonly allowed someday, but not likely in my lifetime. Ironically, the ban on marriage was put in to combat corruption in the Church because of abuses of priests willing their parishes to their children. The Church is going to move very slowly here because it doesn’t want to re-open that issue.
Birth control: There is a chance you may see the Church formerly condone the use of condoms in certain circumstances, such as a married couple where one partner has AIDS. You will not see the Church accept abortion or any birth control they feel is an abortifecient. You *might* see Pope Francis start a process of dialogue that eventually (in another 20-30 years) leads a theological consensus that would support a change on hormonal birth control if there is medical evidence to support it. But the Catholic church will never support abortion. It just can’t. It stops being the Catholic church if it does.
Gay rights: Here people really don’t understand the Church’s position. Gays have the same rights in the Church as heterosexual people. There are gay priests and gay lay people. However, gays are supposed to remain celibate (as are heterosexuals) except within the confines of a marriage. If you expect to see Pope Francis make gay marriage a sacrament, you really need to do some reading about Catholic theology on marriage.
Women in the clergy: There are thousands of women serving as clergy already. (ie. nuns) What you really mean is female priests. It may happen someday, but it’ll be several hundred years after you have married priests. You might nuns allowed to perform some sacraments (like confession) but not communion, which is the big kahuna.
People who expect to see big changes in the Catholic church need to understand that in the eyes of most of the clergy, the Catholic church has just gone through a major reform. (Vatican II) It might seem like a long time ago, but in the eyes of the church, it’s recent history. (They are still making changes to the mass that were recommended back in 1963.) The Catholic church is a very (small c) conservative organization.
Your last comment on tradition is more on target than you realize. Traditions, like not eating meat on Friday, took centuries to change and only changed because there was not a doctrinal basis for them. Most of your wish list items (except for married priests) have doctrinal foundations. You might not agree with Catholic doctrine on the issues, but don’t expect any Pope to change Church doctrine without decades or centuries of discussion.
Sorry to dash your hopes of attending a gay wedding presided over by a married female priest, but that’s not likely to happen in a year that starts with a 2, let alone in Pope Francis’ lifetime. Pope Francis is 78, so it is likely he will live for no more than 15 years. Do you really think you’ll see those kind of changes in the next 15 years?
What Pope Francis could do is create a body of like minded people who over the course of their careers in the church are able to begin start a dialogue on some of these issues and how they (the issues) are really compatible with Catholic doctrine. That would actually be a very large legacy. I don’t think he will be able to accomplish that though, because of his age. If he were in his 50s, maybe. But he just doesn’t have much time.
But even if he were able to start that process, you still won’t get your wish list. Some of them are just too hard to reconcile with church doctrine. Abortion being the biggest. In the year 3000, you might have married, lesbian priests, but Church doctrine will still oppose abortion.
Interesting. Actually, I don’t have a wish list. The only reason I particularly care is because of American policy on a few issues.
I don’t really expect the catholic Church to change its position on abortion. I expect it to continue to preach to its flock. However, I don’t expect it to be in the position to exercise its authority on such matters, including birth control. 60 years ago you couldn’t even purchase birth control in NJ, NY, Conn. Now THAT I do have a problem with.
As for theology, it’s rather interesting to look at the church’s view on ensoulment. In the early church writings, ensoulment took place earlier in boys than in girls. Go figure.
I think change will come faster than you predict. First off, the American Church throws in a lot more money than any other area. Money talks. American Catholics for the most past really pretty much do their own thing about birth control. There are gay Catholics. Many nun orders are fairly militant and lead rather secular lives. When was the last time you saw a nun in full uniform?
There is a huge shortage of priests. Women will gain more and more power just to keep the faith alive. Now will this happen in my lifetime? Probably not.
Finally, I don’t have a dog in the fight other than religion influencing policy. Daughter of an ex and wife of an ex. I escaped.
Here’s a blog by a married Catholic priest. (Not the one I met once)
Worth the click if nothing else to see the picture of him with his family.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/08/05/im-a-catholic-priest-and-im-married/
I have only met the ones who have left and married. One of the lived here locally.
Meh. This an issue for Roman Catholics. I (a former catholic) don’t see the pontiff as the “Vicar of Christ”, but respect those who do.
“However, I don’t expect it to be in the position to exercise its authority on such matters, including birth control.”
My faith doesn’t oppose birth control, but it does oppose abortion. However, since this is a moral question, I think the leaders of the these faith traditions are legitimately exercising their influence and authority in encouraging their practitioners to live their lives, according to the teachings of their faith, and this includes voting.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. (when would THAT ever happen?) I do think churches have every right to exercise their authority over their flock, just not public policy.
I absolutely have no problem with any religion opposing abortion, for its own flock. That’s a religion’s job…to provide moral guidance to its followers.
I don’t expect public policy to be created around any one religion’s world view either. Many religions many different opinions.
This Pope reminds me of the George Carlin character in Dogma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FigprdcBGA
When this Pope was on the verge of being elected, he told the assembled cardinals in a semi-joking manner that they could be very sorry.
Tut, tut, once again. Seems to be no cure for this unpleasant atheist malady.
Um… Who suggested they “breed like rabbits”? Not Catholic but is this news?
I don’t know. I have heard it most of my life. Maybe it has reached urban legend status?
I don’t just cover “news”.
@Moon-howler
Understood Moon 🙂
I didn’t mean it like that… I suppose I don’t see it as a big deal but in the Catholic community is this a change of some sort? I don’t remember any pope telling Catholics to breed like rabbits.
I think there has been a prevailing feeling that there is nothing you can do and that God determines these things. My husband, before he left the church, was told that if his wife used birth control, he was not to have relations with her. (I wasn’t that wife.)
That’s pretty screwed up. I know that I sat in the Cathedral in Richmond on many a Sunday and listened to the sins of birth control and what your Godly duty as a woman was. Totally grossed me out also.
I never hear breed like rabbits but that was the underlying message back then in that particular church.
@Moon-howler
Really? To quote you “that is pretty screwed up”. Can honestly say I have never heard of birth control referred to as a sin sans abortion or morning after type meds.
It absolutely is. In the grand scheme of things, both have equal rank in the sin department.
@Moon-howler
“I don’t expect public policy to be created around any one religion’s world view either. Many religions many different opinions.”
True, but in a democracy, “public policy” should consider the “will of the people”, when said policy is developed. If “the people” are members of a faith that opposes abortion, vote their faith-values according to their Faith-based world-view, and are successful in getting leaders elected who reflect their views, why shouldn’t this influence public policy?
Because it violates individual rights.
What’s to keep Muslim communities from voting in their faith based laws as policy?
What’s to keep communities where many observant Jews live to declare Saturdays to be the Sabbath and therefore not allow any sports on Saturdays? What’s keeping them from closing off public youth sports fields?
I just don’t think anyone’s religion should be part of public policy.
I think, personally, that the Constitution says nothing implying right to an abortion, or anyone’s right to prevent them.
It should be state-by-state.
However, common-sense wise, it’s insane to think that a woman should be forced to carry an embryo to term (or, more likely, to throw herself down stairs or fall off a horse) just because some people believe that the embryo has a “soul” in it. It’s not at all far afield of the things that are being done in the Muslim world that we all see as 7th Century, primitive stuff.
So, I don’t think the answer here lies in using Federal government power to assert the right to an abortion. That just invites our politicized courts to fight over this for another generation. The answer lies in discussing the issue, and the insanity of the “pro-life” position which is tilting at windmills, and based in superstition.
I await the day when pro-life voters come to realize that the Republican Party doesn’t REALLY want to outlaw abortion – they know that would be a huge mess. They just want to market themselves that way to you, to get you to keep pulling the lever for them. There really is no way forward to “outlaw” abortion.
It most certainly strongly implies a right to privacy. I strongly oppose state by state because you have a patchwork of laws that impose hardship on women at a very vulnerable time in their lives. Most abortions are tied to poverty and financial hardship. You shouldn’t have to go to freaking NY to get an abortion if that is what you have decided to do.
Local clinics are far safer and more a part of local trappings. Clinics that deal with mostly out of state people tend to be places I wouldn’t send my dog to. Not always but local people know good clinics from bad clinics. If you have to go out of state, then you are really at the mercy of who has the best ad in the phone book.
Its already been decided Constitutionally anyway. I wish I could say done deal.
the one thing I agree with is that there is no way to really stop abortion.
Pro-lifers are sad people, out of touch with reality, looking for a cause to make them feel like heroes. I assume that 99% of them strongly supported our invasion of Iraq, because that filled the same psychological need in them, and was marketed to them by the same political cast of characters.
I have all the respect in the world for people who espouse that belief personally. I don’t have that same respect for political movements that use that world view. How people believe privately is one thing. What they want to beat me over the head with is another.
I suspect the “breed like rabbits” thing comes from a theology that sex is the marital equivalent of the Eucharist and that every sexual relation has to be open to a procreative act…leading to pregnancy and the birth of a child. Couples can choose when to have sex to minimize the risk of pregnancy but never use artificial means such as tubal ligation, vasectomies, chemical birth control, etc.
This view has been repudiated by “the church” (if you consider the church is the sum of the members) since nearly all Catholics use some form of birth control. The catholic couples have changed the theological understanding that sex is primarily for procreation to sex primarily as an expression of love and a unifying element in a family relationship. When the church finally codifies that change it will have broad implications:
1) Prohibition on gay sex loses the theological underpinning that it is sinful because procreation can’t happen. Marriage get redefined as the creation of households rather than blessing sexual intercourse. That leads to the blessing of many non-traditional family structures including marriages after divorce.
2) Broadens the definition of sexual relations beyond vaginal intercourse. Unmarried heterosexual individuals engaged in oral sex are not committing fornication with the current theology because it is not any more “pro-creative” than kissing. That’s the Clinton/Lewinski loophole that just doesn’t make sense to modern couples. Changing the theology of sex allows for a more coherent moral teaching on what types of intimacy should be reserved for a marital relationship and what types of sexual intimacy are sinful.
There are pluses and minuses to changing the theology of sex but I predict for practical reasons (the universal acceptance of birth control, the need to theologically explain why male pedophilia is wrong) that it will happen in this century.
ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
Now I feel better. You have some interesting ideas–some I had never considered.
I am horrified by these huge families that really have too many children to take care of. THAT to me is the sin, not birth control.
At what point do men in these relationships find the decency to leave the woman alone also?
We have a very tragic situation locally a few years ago. To me, the sin was having too many children to possibly take care of. You can’t delegate responsibility down to younger children.
@Cato the Elder
Amen brother! (or sister) The Carlin Character is spot on about the Catholic Church. There can be no serious discussion of moral issues as long as the Church hides, defends and promotes child molesters. They lost any moral ground to preach about anything. This latest public relations hyperbole about how wonderful this Pope is and what a man of the people he is, defies the facts.
“What they want to beat me over the head with is another.” Well said, agree 100%
He is likeable and a breath of fresh air to some people.
Not saying he is wonderful.
Well, well, “Mr. Bentley.” Hate much?
While you might not like what Rick said, can you deny that some of what he says is correct?
I don’t think it is hate speech. You might not like what he said but hate? Nah.
Such a serious topic. Everyone is soooo serious.
Here’s some Monty Python:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&list=RDfUspLVStPbk
@Moon-howler
Disagree. Plenty of hate, I say. It seems to crop up somewhere in almost every series of posts “Mr. Bentley” makes, as if his avocation is to insult certain people whenever he can. I’m disappointed that you defend it. “Mr. Bentley” seems very determined to throw the overalls into your blog chowder. Too bad. It’s his free speech right, with your nihil obstat added, of course; but, when ones sees those nasty attacks over and over again, one becomes disinclined to enter any further into conversations on such a thread. There are better things to do.
It’s not hate speech. It hardly could be. I’m not burning with hatred so much as attached bemusement.
sorry, I meant DETACHED bemusement.
“detached bemusement” — Now, THAT was good for a laugh. As much as “Mr. Bentley” plants trash talk on this blog, he hardly qualifies as “detached.”
You somehow manage to bash Obama and Clinton without mercy. Rick goes for God.
Does this mean *I* will get dtruck by lightning?
Really? All 1.2Billion Catholics have lost their moral ground?
@Ed Myers
So much of your post is just plain wrong, I don’t know where to start. The change you say will happen sometime in the next this century actually happened in the last century. 1968 to be exact, with the publication of Humanae Vitae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae
It’s odd that you somehow come to the conclusion that the Church is going to say gay sex is licit because it isn’t procreative. The Church says that sex has a unitive purpose for married people. Don’t expect to the Church to drop that last part any time soon, and until they do, the Church would expect gays to remain celibate except when married. And you would probably agree that it is unlikely the Catholic Church will make gay marriage a sacrament anytime soon.
I haven’t said it clearly, but I hope it’s obvious that I am not advocating the Church’s position. I’m just stating what it is. There is so much misunderstanding on the Church’s positions on sex it’s not even funny. I’ve been married for over 20 years, and my wife and I got tips on oral sex from a priest during our pre-wedding counseling. At All Saints in Manassas. And this area is one of the most conservative dioceses in the country.
That all circles back to my main point. What Pope Francis is saying is nothing different than any Pope in the last 50 years. It’s just people seem more receptive to it because they like this Pope more than his predecessors.
Also this idea that the Catholic Church somehow cares what the majority of its members think seems to come from non-Catholics. At least concerning doctrine, the Church isn’t going to change even if 99% of Catholics disagree on something. The Church isn’t a democracy and has shown its unwillingness to change doctrine even when it had every reason to do so. Look at Henry the VIII. The Catholic church lost the entire country of England rather than budge on divorce. You really think they’ll change a doctrinal position just because it’s unpopular?
Furby, I think Ed is speculating. He isn’t stating what he feels is doctrine.
I agree and disagree with you on some of this. Absolutely the church isn’t participating in a survey. They couldn’t care less about what the masses think.
I think you just got a good priest. [wink wink]
I also think that progress is moving very slowly. My point of reference is that I am protestant and my husband was Catholic. For a while I went to mass with him. I finally just couldn’t do it. It was turning me into something I didn’t want to be…. So he went alone until he dropped out. He had been married before so there was no communion. He was really an outsider looking in. However, he has told me stuff that he has been told by priests and you just really have to ask yourself what are they thinking.
Let’s face it. There are modern priests who skirt around “official doctrine” and then there are those who tow the party line.
I do think what Francis is saying has a much more accepting ring to it.
@Furby
Doctrine does not change but interpretation of doctrine (just like interpretations of law) change over time as circumstances change. The emphasis on the procreative aspects of sex is rapidly disappearing. The “unity” aspect of sex was viewed as the connection that occurs by creating a child together. That bond in sex is broken when children are created by IVF. Even heterosexual couples are using IVF because they want 20 y.o. eggs to produce babies when the mother is 40+. Life is increasingly being created not in the magic of vaginal intercourse, but in a test tube. We have taken the mystical out of sex acts.
The Church can still say that doing it the natural heterosexual way is preferred and everything else is sin, but if excommunication has no teeth and the faithful don’t follow then the church leadership has to go where the sheep are and not where doctrines hopes they would be.
So even with static doctrine Christian churches are likely to be more accommodating of non-traditional household formations. I remember hearing about a ceremony blessing roommates at the beginning of a college year. Gay unions might not be a sacrament but might be seen as worthy of a blessing as college roommates. Catholics did get over the moral objection to the marriage of Catholic to non-Catholics because of popular opinion; not because church doctrine or tradition said it was ok.
Churches in a world where individuals have freedom of religion are subject to popular opinion or will become extinct. Perhaps it will take 50 years to process the changes in popular opinion on sex to create an updated interpretations of historical doctrine that is helpful to Catholic parishioners, but it will happen. The pope has a bully pulpit and tons of financial assets, but no power over the laity.
I’m constantly amazed that people are willing to allow (even encourage) a third party to come between them and their God and “interpret” His teachings for them.
@Furby McPhee
“The Catholic church lost the entire country of England rather than budge on divorce.”
Well, the battalions of Spanish troops that just …happened…to be in the vicinity of Rome at the time DID convince the Pope not to grant Henry’s wish concerning his Spanish queen……
Point made….Good deterant.
Apparently the Spanish Inquisition removed the other youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk”
Of course, we must see the Protestant position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8
Quick quiz: Where does the expression “John Thomas” come from? No cheating or googling.
@middleman, I’m more inclined to view the Pope as the collector of “best practices” of Christian culture and teaching as curated from a global church.
But I agree with you that ultimately religion is personal no matter how one exercises it. No one can force anyone else to believe something. (After typing this I realized that chemical and electrical manipulation of the brain might allow someone to alter another’s moral framework. Hmm.)
No idea. I just know that it’s a Brit slang.
Lady Chatterly’s Lover.
Now before that, I have no idea but that is what the gameskeeper called it.