Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
The question may seem ridiculous, and I would certainly agree that the answer is almost certainly no. “Almost certainly,” I say – and then I stop. For something very interesting happened on Friday when Pope Benedict addressed a group of American bishops who had come to Rome to consult with him. In his remarks, according to The Wall Street Journal, he
denounced what he called the failure of priests and bishops to instruct Catholics in core church teachings on human sexuality, saying many Catholics seem unaware that living together outside of marriage was "gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society."
The entire Christian community, he said, must recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity.
"Young people need to encounter the church's teaching in all its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to truth," he said.
Pope Benedict said a weakened appreciation for traditional marriage and the widespread rejection of responsible sexuality had led to "grave social problems bearing an immense human and economic cost."
In all likelihood, the Pope was responding to the same events that caused me to write American Catholicism’s Pact with the Devil and American Catholicism: A Call to Arms a month ago. In all likelihood, the similarity between my concerns and his stem solely from the fact that his understanding of the dereliction of duty on the part of the bishops, priests, and nuns in the American Church overlaps considerably with my own.
It is nonetheless conceivable that these blogposts were drawn to his attention. On and after 13 February, when Rush Limbaugh devoted two hours of his radio show to reading out and commenting on the first of the two, it drew more than one hundred thousand readers, and in the weeks that have passed since that time I have been deluged with telephone calls, e-mails, and letters from seminarians, clergymen, and lay people – nearly all of them congratulatory. Many of those who wrote had stories of their own to tell that dovetailed with my experience. Most of them expressed gratitude that someone finally had spoken up.
I have no doubt that all over the United States parishioners have inflicted my ruminations on their parish priests and bishops. I clearly struck a nerve, and I would not be surprised to learn that someone in the Vatican took note. I think that I might even be able to put a name on that someone.
I am not especially well connected, but I know a handful of figures of some prominence – and almost a decade ago I had a leisurely lunch with an official high in the Vatican bureaucracy. The subject of our conversation was the state of the American Church, and you can imagine what I said. My interlocutor was in wholehearted agreement with my assessment of the situation, and he told me that help was on the way.
We have not had much contact since. But every once in a while I have heard from him – usually in response to something I wrote or was involved in (e.g., the History Channel series on ancient Sparta). If my post came to his attention, as it might well have done, I can easily imagine his seeing to it that it circulated within the Vatican. I am confident that, for a very long time, the Pope and his advisors have been thinking about the crisis of the American Church, the role played by the sexual revolution in engendering that crisis, and how and when that crisis might be addressed. It is not likely that my blogpost played any role in their deliberations, but it is by no means out of the question.
One thing is clear. The Pope and his advisors are thinking strategically. They regard Barack Obama’s HHS mandate rightly as a catastrophe; and, instead of wringing their hands, they asked themselves what good could be elicited from this catastrophe. And with that end in mind, they have decided to take the challenge posed to the Church as an opportunity to set the American Church on a new course. Though long overdue, this decision is most welcome.
This morning, for the first time since the early 1960s I heard a sermon from a Catholic pulpit on the subject of chastity. Our pastor here in Hillsdale, Michigan prefaced his remarks by observing that those who had issued the HHS mandate had done so on the presumption that, in the United States, the Catholic clergy and laity did not take seriously the teaching of the Church concerning chastity and that the time had come to prove them wrong. It was as moving a sermon as I have ever heard.
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
It was Rush reading your piece on the Church and mentioning Ricochet that let me to be a subscriber. So, many thanks to you and to Rush.
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
I don't know if anyone else has said it,..but welcome Bill! And if someone else has said it, then just add my welcome to the stack please. Glad to have you here.
Jun '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Tom Meyer
katievs
JP II sexual ethics is the fruit of a genuine, thoughtful engagement with the legitimate aspirations of feminism and the sexual revolution. It represents real developments in the Church's teaching and pastoral approach.
Interesting. Anything in particular you can point me to? · 1 hour ago
There are easier to read introductions, but if you want the full-strength undiluted source try Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body.
Jun '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Tom Meyer:
Again, I stipulate that Humanae Vitaewas almost uniquely prescient about the negative consequences of the sexual revolution, something Catholics and the papacy should rightfully take great pride in. What I have yet to see -- from anyone, including myself -- is a morally serious set of sexual ethics that doesn't begin "Step 1: Undo the sexual revolution." · 4 hours ago
What, precisely, is wrong with "undo the sexual revolution?" Seems like a good starting point to me.
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
It is worth ruminating about what it would take to reverse the sexual revolution. If I can find the time, I will at some point make a suggestion or two. It is a subject that I have been puzzling over for a long time.
Aug '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Women who take pride in their virginity, for one thing.
It should at least not be embarrassing for girls to own up to being virgins, as it too often is these days.
Virgins or not, all girls could more practice saying no to whatever they're not interested in. Girls are generally more eager to please others than guys are, so saying no -- to anything, really -- is not something that many girls can do with confidence unless they've practice it a lot before they get backed into a corner.
Moreover, I think many guys these days crave more no than they're getting. Else, how could dominatrices make such high salaries?
Guys used to get no for free. Now they pay for it.
Jan '11
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Joseph Stanko
There are easier to read introductions, but if you want the full-strength undiluted source try Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body....
What, precisely, is wrong with "undo the sexual revolution?" Seems like a good starting point to me.
Thanks, Joseph, but a shorter introduction would be ideal (quick Googling turned up nothing useful beyond a wiki article, which I'd rather not trust).
My main problem with the idea of undoing the Sexual Revolution is that I think it's an impossible goal; we're simply never getting that toothpaste back in the tube.
Second, I'm not convinced that it's been bad on the whole. To be sure, there's been tremendous damage -- especially among lower classes, as Charles Murray has pointed out -- but a number of social indicators are swinging back in the right direction, such as teen sexual activity.
Third, alternative behaviors aren't created equal. Young professionals who cohabitate for a few years before getting married and having kids -- the norm among my friends these days -- isn't socially harmful in the way that women having multiple kids by multiple dads is.
Jun '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Tom Meyer
My main problem with the idea of undoing the Sexual Revolution is that I think it's an impossible goal; we're simply never getting that toothpaste back in the tube.
I think the idea that social changes are irreversible is a liberal fallacy. Morality must be learned anew by each generation, and children react against the mistakes of their parents. If some social indicators are swinging the right direction it could be partly because children raised in broken homes and by single parents are taking marriage more seriously.
Over the longer term social trends tend to alternate between overly permissive and overly puritan. Social mores were much more permissive in Elizabethan England than they were in later Victorian England. More recently, look at the Iranian Revolution or the famous series of graduation photos in Egypt showing more and more women wearing head scarves.
My point of course is not to endorse the Victorian or Islamic models, but simply to point out that history is not a one-way ratchet as progressives insist but rather a pendulum. The further it swings to one extreme, the more likely a sudden and violent swing in the opposite direction.
Nov '11
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Professor Rahe,
In your responses to several commenters, you directed them to "read Andrew Sipe". In the interest of clarity, may I suggest that it's "Richard A. Sipe" to whom you might be referring?
Aug '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
Tom Meyer
Third, alternative behaviors aren't created equal. Young professionals who cohabitate for a few years before getting married and having kids -- the norm among my friends these days -- isn't socially harmful in the way that women having multiple kids by multiple dads is.
Hardly socially harmful to the same degree. But not innocent, either. Especially because many "cohabitations before marriage" end in painful and messy breakups rather than marriage.
Women waste a lot of time cohabiting with men who never marry them, and then when they've finally had it and decide the must get married now if they ever want kids, etc, they settle for a guy who's less into them than they could have gotten earlier. Not that it has to turn out this way, but it too often does.
Men and women are simply not equal when it comes to the optimum age range for being an attractive mate. Women peak earlier, and when they delay marriage to match men's schedules, it's not a big surprise they're often left with fewer options.
Plus, people who cohabit before marriage seem less inclined to take marriage seriously if they do get married.
Sep '10
Re: Does the Pope Read Ricochet?
The routine delay of marriage due to education's continuation for more than a decade after puberty seems to be a severe test of self-restraint.