Mike Evans call for the humility "to simply acknowledge that 'we don't really know for sure'" is wise counsel in many situations for many people. However, "knowing for sure" and passing on that knowledge of the saving power of Christ and his teachings is a mandate of the Church given by its Founder. Such a broad commitment to humility as recommended by Evans seems to smack of both cowardice and relativism when applied to the magesterium.

TR Tradition does not have it easy in contemporary life. The burden is on traditionalists to explain what condition their condition is in—not only to themselves, but to non-traditionalist others. Whether traditionalists choose to emphasize the durability or the flexibility of their beliefs and practices, they encounter the same problem. Often, from an outside perspective, traditions appear arbitrary or incoherent, and traditionalists may seem dishonest about the degree to which their inheritances are mere preferences. But what defines the current era is how traditions now commonly appear from the inside. Increasingly, our attention is drawn to the possibility that traditions cannot supply their own foundations in contemporary life. Today, what struggles most to survive within traditions is their authority itself.     James Poulos, January 19th, 2011

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/01/19/james-poulos/tradition-in-the-age-of-equality/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cato-unbound+%28Cato+Unbound%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Wayne, would you apply your strict loyalty to so-called magisterium teaching on denying ordination to women at least as deacons, on slavery, usury, the dispute over artificial birth control, and support for capitalism versus a preferential option for the poor? Or, perhaps a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth? Humility admits to the possibilty of error, of revision, and of development in doctrine and practice. Pretending to know absolutely is over-reaching and theologically dangerous.

There are many things that we can claim with "certainty". Jesus is the son of God is a certainty for Christians. Catholics accept as truth with certainty the fundamental tenents of their faith. Event in moral law there is certainty, for example, killing an innocent person and adultery are wrong.

However, there is also much uncertainty, especially in sexual ethics where the hierarchy proclaims with moral certitude that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil as well as deportation; just read Verititas Spendor. At the center of the birth control encyclical is God's procreative plan. Who truly knows God's procreative plan with moral certainty? Is God's procreative plan for women who have children and want no more for good reasons, to plot on a calendar the daily measurment of basil temperature and cervial mucus to determine infertile days and limit sexual intercourse to those days in order that marital acts are non-procreative? If a married whose life is threatened by another pregnancy elects to safe-guard her life by the most prudent and securest means possible (sterilization), prevented from doing so because the Church proclaims, with moral certainty, God's plan where she must practice risky periodic continence, or remain sexually inactive? I think not for philosophical and theologian reasons.

Jerry Ryan's article is spot on.

Mike Evans,

My point is that the proclamation of the truth in the areas of Christian faith and morals is the divine appointed responsibility of the exercisors of the magesterium of the Church. If one does not accept that, one's Catholic faith would seem to be "grounded" on quicksand. If the Pope and the bishops do not perform this duty they are being disobedient to their divine mandate. Does this mean that every word uttered by a Pope or a bishop, or even a council, over the years has the indisputable mantle of truth enveloping it. No, of course not. However, the proclivity of any Catholic is to accept their teachings, try to understand the reasons behind them, and always, unless given good evidence otherwise (Cardinal Mahoney comes to mind) to respect the proclaimers. The virtue I wished Jerry Ryan had talked about what might be lacking in the heirarchy, rather than humility, is prudence. There has been a number of unprudential ramarks by not a few bishops recently. As far as your specific questions, I do not see a lack of concern for the poor on the part of American Catholic bishops, nor a strong defense of unrestarined capitalism; I think the oridination of woman as deacons is still an open question (I personally favor it; but, I will accept whatever final dcision is made); slavery was never a positive teaching of the Church, and not practiced by the Church hierarchy, although I agree some in the Church were not in the vanguard opposing it; what do you mean by "usery? If you mean charging of excess interest on loans, that, as far as I know, has never been ok with the Church. The preference has been for loans without interest, or simple charitable gifts; I have agonized over the morality of artificial birth control for decades, origninally believing the Church was wrong to condemn it in toto. However, seeing the spread of immorality, veneral disease, the ease of adultry, and the like, I'm beginning to see the wisdom, if not all the reasoning, behind the Church's official stant here; as far as the "mandate," the issue is not birth control, it is who can define the Church, the Church itself, or the secular government. I think the heirarchy was right in opposing the mandate, and I hope the "accommodation" announced by HHR will put the issue right; the "flat earth" and "earth revolving around the sun" canard is not even worth addressing. History has shown that the Church has been at the forefront of supporting and encouraging true science for more than a millenia. I do agree to an extent that "pretending to know absolutely and overreaching is dangerous;" thus the need for prudence, and, ok, perhaps a bit more humility.

Wayne wrote: "I have agonized over the morality of artificial birth control for decades, origninally believing the Church was wrong to condemn it in toto. However, seeing the spread of immorality, veneral disease, the ease of adultry, and the like, I'm beginning to see the wisdom, if not all the reasoning, behind the Church's official stant here."

How does the use of artificial contraception by faithful and responsible married Catholics cause of the spread of immorality, veneral disease the ease of adultery and the like? Where is there any study by respected scientific research that has concluded that the use of artifiical birth control is the cause of: the increase in abortion, the increase in spousal abuse, the increase in divorce or the increase in adultery?

Abusus non tollit usum: the abuse of a thing does not take away from it legitmate use. Examples from daily life abound. The fact that alcohol and other drugs are abused by several millions of people does not mean that their responsible use by the rest of us should be forbidden.

Michael Barbieri. Your point is well taken. I meant the acceptance and wide use of contraceptives in our society has led to the social ills I listed. Use of contraceptives as you describe would notlikely  lead to those ills. The widespread use of contraceptives as the "norm" has resulted in a societal acceptance of pre-maritla sex, casual sex, the easing of adulterous behavior and divorce, and of course the rapid spreading of veneral disease. It is not the only cause, but a major cause. I will look into the studies. The increase in abortions is due to the legalization of the procedure virtually on an "on demand" basis and the belief that it is only another form of contraception when others do not work. If the Church would allow the use of artificial contraception when other methods do not work by married couples in real need of both preserving the marriage and providing some relief from the possibility of too many children, I, personally, would welcome that. However, I believe the actual number of such cases is very limited. I also know that some couples have recieved permission to use artificial contraception when absolutley needed by their confessors and spiritual advisors. As with abortion, which is an intrinsic evil, a moral exception is made when an abortion occurs in the process of a procedure intended to save the life of a mother, exceptions can be made in the rare use of artificial contraception when needed by married couples. But, that is not what most advocates of lifting the moral ban on artificial contraceptives are advocating. They see little or no moral damage caused by the all so casaul use and promotion of the use of artificial contraception in society. They are profoundly wrong.

Wayne,

The increase in promiscuity in Western society was a result of the cultural sift in the 1960s. This would have ocurred without the pill. The pill was an easier form of birth control, but studies have shown that it has been the inconsistent use and lack of contraception that account for the overwhelming percentage of unintended pregnancies and abortions. This issue comes down to personal and moral responsibilty. I am against abortion. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Church's assertion (e.g, JP II) that couples who practice periodic continence (PC) treat each other as loving subjects, while couples that use artiicial birth control have a utilitaria attitude and a diabolical love grounded in concupiscence. Couples who practice PC or contraception and conceive a child by accident, would welcome the child into their families with unconditional love. Very few marrired couples would choose abortion.

As for PC, 30% of women have irregular mentrual cycles and PC does not work them. Pius XII said that a couple can be exempt from their procreative obligations in marriage for good and just reasons (e.g. his 1951 address to the midwives). For these same good and just reasons couples can practice PC but cannot take the pill. The truth is that it is marriage, not every marital act, that must be open to procreation. However, not all marriages are open to procreation because many couples are either infertile, or marry late where the woman is in menopause. 

Make no mistake about it, pre-marital sex is immoral as well as adultery. However, this has nothing to do with responsible parenthood and fertility regulation. The Church got this teaching wrong and it needs to be responsibly modified. 

Michael,

I agree with most of what you say above. The increase in promiscuity in society occured because of cultural shifts in society in the 1960's, which may have occured with or without the ready availability and acceptance of the pill, but such availability and acceptance certainly greatly accelerated the trend and continues to do so; for example, there are now some public and private schools making the pill available to young girls as young as eleven. Of course if one is to continence promiscuous sex outside of marriage and there is readily available abortion on demand, there will be an increase in abortions, for a variety of reasons, including the inconsistent use of contraceptives. Your argument here  seems to be that you are saying: since we are in a promiscuous society, contraceptives should be made readily available and their proper use encouraged as a means of reducing abortions. It would seem as Christians, we should be concentrating on changing the mores of society, not accepting or even encouraging promiscuity, which seems to be the assumption behind the argument. I'm not familiar with the JPII remarks you paraphrase above; I will, as they say, look it up. I do substantially  agree with your exposition of the nature of marriage and procreation. I do not think the Church got the teaching wrong;I believe the teaching is morally and sociologically sound. However, there are exceptional circumstances in which modification of the application of the teaching does seem reasonable. I know this is occuring on the pastoral level. I would welcome, as you do, some responsible modification of the teaching, at least to cover these circumstances.