AmericanPapist Comments
Yes the situation is different 40 years later. Family life is in crisis with so many divorces. More women are being treated as objects. Abortion is common. All the things Pope Paul VI predicted have come true and everything the defenders of contraception predicted are dross.
Is "sir" the proper title of a Roman Catholic priest?
Thomas --
I hope you are right about your generation's reception of Humanae Vitae . . . but, could you point to some evidence to support that assertion?
I suppose my experience is as valid as yours, but in the real world, I hear confessions and you don't.
Donald,
Sir is an appropriate title for a Catholic priest. Its usage, though now somewhat outdated in reference to clergy, dates from the 13th century when it was applied first to clergy, then to barons and knights.
"Sir" is derived from "sieur," or "sire." So it's perfect for padres.
I can think of at least four married couples I know as good friends that embrace Humanae Vitae and all it teaches. (I could probably think of more if given the time.) While this doesn't constitute documented evidence, I can second Thomas' assertion that the younger generations are open and receptive to the encyclical.
Take it for what it's worth, but when Fr. McBrien and his ilk imply that the Faithful are united against Humanae Vitae, they usually don't count the opinions of non-dissenters to be worth much, if anything at all...
RM --
I don't doubt that there are many young married couples today who follow the teachings of Humanae Vitae with fidelity and enthusiasm, but I think that has been true for couples of earlier generations as well.
I thought the point of Thomas' comment was that there has been a change toward acceptance, as if more Catholic young people today are remaining chaste before marriage and following to Humanae Vitae in their married lives.
Did I misunderstand his comment?
Thank you for posting this article, Thomas. While I was aware of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae...I did not know about the thought that "If the proclamation is genuinely evangelical, the Holy Spirit will see to the echo throughout the whole Church; if it is not, [the Holy Spirit] will see to the static" (Aug. 9, 1968)." Is this simply Fr. McBrien's opinion from a previous article he wrote or is this the actual definition of an encyclical. Something about this doesn't ring true for me.
If this is his benchmark for deeming Humanae Vitae a failure, I would argue that 40 years is absolutely not a long enough time in the entire history of the Church to judge something as true or not.
And since when have we, as Christians, agreed that Truth is measured by majority opinion? Hmm. I think never.
Leigh, it's a fallacious argument, and certainly does not represent an authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit's action within the Body of Christ.
Brassband, I would say the current generation of men entering seminary and Catholics getting married are, on the whole, more open to the Church's teaching against contraception. Numbers and statistics are hard to come by, but there is certainly a very active minority, and active minorities have influence beyond their numbers.
Also -
I thought I would add that great sources of "evidence" that younger generations are adopting the teachings of Humanae Vitae are the tens of thousands of people just in Facebook groups that support Humanae Vitae and NFP. You don't join a group like that just to show your friends...it's a statement among social networkers.
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2229998645
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2256560285
http://www.facebook.com/
group.ph...gid=31876175288
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2223991361
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2226847003
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2210371323
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2204750928
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph...?
gid=2401277279
http://www.facebook.com/search_r...292&
k=200000010
Let me thrown my two cents in here, as well. My wife and I are in our late twenties, and we have a weekly meeting with three other couples: early forties, late thirties, and newlyweds in their early twenties. We all rather consider fidelity to Humanae Vitae as a litmus test of one's orthodoxy--whether fair or not.
That being said, what's being enthusiastically received by the younger generation of Catholics is Humanae Vitae through the reflections of John Paul II in the theology of the body. Many commentators point out that Paul VI, without detracting from his bravery, could have done a better job making his argument in HV. I read somewhere that although he accepted Cardinal Wojtyla's input, he didn't use much of Wojtyla's suggestions. Either way, we got the ToB.
Brassband,
No, I don't think you misunderstood Thomas' comment, I was simply providing my thoughts on the topic. Specifically, it seems to me that people my age (mid to late twenties) are actually fully embracing Humanae Vitae and all it entails. Like I said, it's far from a documented statistic or anything formal, but from what I can see, there does seem to be a difference between my generation and say, my parents generation on the issue.
I think this is largely because of JPII's Theology of the Body and also because of the work of awesome people like Christopher West and those we find in the Blogging world. It seems (again this is just what I've noticed) that there's more of an effort to explain HV in the Church now, and consequently, people understand the teachings and choose to follow them.
'tis all I'm sayin'...
I hope you are all correct on this trend, and I also hope it is reflected in Catholic population numbers very soon.
In the part of the U.S. where I live (New England) baptism rates have declined sharply in the past decade and our K-8 Catholic School enrollment is way, way down.
A quick reversal of these statistics is the only thing that will save many of these struggling schools.
RM--Can we play "jinx" on AMP?
Brassband--Some time ago Thomas did post a few numbers (and I've seen them elsewhere). Basically, what appears to be happening among the "younger" generation (40-ish and below--the so-called "post-VII generation") is an amazing split around the 40% mark. About 40% of this younger generation of Catholics are "as orthodox as their pre-VII grandparents" The other 60% are continuing the trend of their parents. As RM noted above, the Internet surely has helped, not to mention that as a Church we seem to be doing more teaching (and less "Jesus loves you, let's hug" feel-good "catechizing").
My deacon--mid-to-late 40s--recently commented to me that he is "becoming more orthodox every day." Let's pray this trend continues!
Ed, got a link for that?
His dissent disgusts me, but what can you expect, most people don't pray for their parish priests anymore. What's sad is that this scandal going on in the church is scaring away a lot of young converts, they are going to schismatic catholic groups instead.
Look, "Father" McBrien is a charming old coot. But no one at Notre Dame takes him seriously anymore. His form of "scholarship" went out with the "23 skidoo." He's just another doubleknit dinosaur whose world is collapsing. I wouldn't waste a nanosecond his views. Tom
There's anecdotal evidence in the form of the World Youth Days' overwhelmingly young crowds and the polls taken among them of fidelity to Papal teaching.
There's the 250,000+ MOSTLY young people who attend the annual March for Life in DC every winter...
There is the popularity of theology on tap in dioceses around the country, the vocation boom in conservative/orthodox orders and movements.
The homeschooling movement, the rise in the average number of children by Gen-X marriages from 2 to 4 and more 'signs of the times' besides.
Commenting by HaloScan
