Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

“Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.”  Before there was a formal Catholic Mass structure, this hymn galvanized the early Christian community based upon its core belief.  What is that core belief?  The Latin text is usually translated as, “Where charity and love are, God is there.”   Thus, if people wish to bring about God’s kingdom, it would seem charity must abound.  So, let’s reflect upon what constitutes “charity.”

The English word “charity” derives from the Latin word “caritas” but there are some important nuances that seem to be lost in translation and perhaps in practice.  “Charity” means to voluntarily give to those in need whereas “caritas” means “dearness”, “esteem”, “high-priced”, “costly”, “fondness”, “attachment”, and “affection” in addition to “charity”. There is a sense of value-related connection associated with the Latin word “caritas” that is lost in our modern translation to “charity.”  For many people in today’s world, charity seems to be detached but caritas was very personal and connected. 

In the early church, when caritas carried its fuller, richer meaning, all community members gave of themselves to the rest of the community. 

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need (Acts 4:32-35).

“From each according to ability to each according to need” is one way to summarize this passage from the Acts of the Apostles.  It was the philosophy of the community but it was a lived philosophy versus an empty phrase hanging on a plaque.  Consequently, the early Christian church grew, not because people were emotionally flogged into abstaining from birth control, but because the marginalized knew that they had a safety net in a caring community where their basic personal needs would be addressed.  And the privileged knew they had a safety net in a caring community, should their fortunes reverse or their popularity diminish.  Instead of merchandising and profiting from their Christianity, they used the proceeds from their secular work to care, personally care, for the community and its members.

I fast forward to today. The Catholic bishops’ charitable organization is called “Caritas Internationalis” with national chapter affiliates such as Catholic Charities USA.   However, what is the U.S. bishops’ personal investment in caring for others?  About two-thirds of Catholic Charities’ funding in the U.S. comes from the government and the remainder from private donations.  The bishops take a lot of money from taxpayers, enshroud it in their rules, and direct employees and volunteers to re-distribute it to those of whom the bishops approve.  Rarely does a bishop have a personal role in any of these interactions: understanding the need, consoling those in need, helping those in need.  Of late some bishops and their fan base have marketed the bishops’ charity organization’s works as part of a public relations effort to boost the bishops’ public image.  Would this qualify as the caritas that defined and galvanized the early Christian community?   

The bishops are not alone in offering detached charity.  We must examine our own charitable efforts.  Are they detached and impersonal efforts or do they more represent the full meaning of caritas?

One way to begin this reflection is to think of the motivation for doing charitable works.  When such works are true caritas, it is all about doing the right thing because “those unfortunate people” are no longer “them” but “us”.  They are “my” people.  Thus the charitable acts are not about making me feel good or my tax write-off but about personally caring for people because God entrusts the care of humanity to all of humanity.  At this point, such works occur because it is one’s honor or duty.  There is not a sense of superiority as though “I am more fortunate and they are less fortunate.”  At this point a person no longer helps other people’s children but instead treats those children as they would their own. 

I once encountered a university chaplain who refused to help Libyan students facing deportation.  The Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 froze these students’ scholarship money, preventing them from attending university and ultimately nullifying their U.S. visas.  Returning to Libya meant almost certain death for these students.  However, this chaplain explained that he was “too busy preparing for Lent and the alternate Spring Break mission trip.”  

I also once encountered someone who repeatedly effused about a mission trip which she found “so cool” because she got to see and help so many “quaint poor people.” 

Caritas is not a destination adventure.  It is not a form of entertainment.  It is not a form of sight-seeing.  It is not to make you feel good.  Should a person feel good that the misfortune of others gives them an opportunity to be helpful and generous?  Or, should the vastness of opportunities grieve them, inspiring them to do as much as they can to help people, and fix broken systems that cause the volume of misfortune?

Many Catholics give to their local parish as an act of charity.  Though churches legally qualify as charitable organizations in the U.S., the typical parish budget does not include funds for the needy.  That is left to a separately funded and run group such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society.  Most parish budgets allocate around a third to a half of collected monies to pay for the Catholic school, subsidizing the tuition of students regardless of financial need.  Indeed, in most parishes to which I’ve belonged, the poor cannot afford to send their children to Catholic school, but still contribute to the weekly parish collection, unaware that this money will help pay the tuition of wealthier people. 

Here’s a representative hypothetical breakdown of parish allocations derived from consultative work I’ve done for a handful of parishes:

Most of the funding goes towards salaries and subsidizing school tuition.  So, do charitable donations to one’s parish qualify as acts of caritas?

Finally, charity is about helping those in need.  That requires defining “need” and “help.”  Are these defined from the eyes of the person in need or by the person doing charitable works?  When it is true caritas, it is from the eyes of the one in need. 

I offer this example.  Once after I was newly divorced, someone anonymously left bags of clothing on my doorstep.  The clothing was really rags so they weren’t helpful.  Furthermore, because I had a good job, I didn’t have a need.  I was actually financially secure enough to be funding a scholarship for other children at the Catholic school my children attended.   But, the incident gave me pause to wonder if the person who did that “charitable” act glowed euphorically for even a moment because they felt they had “helped” someone in “need.”  If so, that was an illusion existing in their mind rather than in reality. 

Is your giving about you or is it about others?  Is it personal and connected or impersonal and detached?  Do you perform works of charity or works of caritas? 

By the way, the oldest version of the hymn had one additional word, “Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est."  And translated, that means, “Where there is true charity, there God is.”  May we see an increase in true charity so as to experience an increase in the presence of God.

Should women try to imitate Mary?

This past week was the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, celebrating the hierarchy’s belief that Mary didn’t die but was assumed into heaven, body and soul.  Many people vigorously debate, “Did she or didn’t she die?”  However, since church hierarchy teach Mary represents the pinnacle of being a good female, wife and mother, my questions tend to concern her life more than her death (or non-death).

Mary and I have the same standard equipment package because we are both females.  But beyond broad physical similarities tied to common gender, I mostly see major differences between our lives.

	Me	Mary as Portrayed by the Hierarchy
Began life	Born into “original sin” in need of redemption	Born pre-redeemed, “immaculately conceived”, free from sin
Lived	Trying to avoid sin but nonetheless committing sins here and there along life’s journey	100% sinless
Was educated	Kindergarten through undergraduate degree in public schools and earned a master degree from a Catholic university	At home and most likely was illiterate
Worked	Outside the home providing for myself and my family, and paying taxes	At home as a wife and mother
Conceived child(ren)	Within my marriage	Before her marriage – what today would be labeled a “welfare momma”, assumed to be expecting others to provide for her and her kid
Had first child	When I was in my twenties	As a teenager
Children’s conception occurred	Via sexual intercourse with husband	Via Holy Spirit “overshadowing” her
Learned about pregnancy	Via a pregnancy test administered by my doctor	Via an angel of the Lord appearing to her – a bit more dramatic than my experience
Gave birth	In a hospital paid for by my insurance	In the stable of an inn and who knows how or if she paid for it
Children’s birth was attended by	Husband, obstetrician, nurses	Husband, donkey, sheep, goats, cattle…perhaps dogs, cats, a chicken or two and some mice
New child visited by	Family, friends and the pediatrician	Shepherds and 3 astrologers from Asia who were all complete strangers – did no one they knew visit these people?
Had	Human daughters who are good kids but still commit sins here and there along life’s journey	One son who was a sinless human/god
Raised	Multiple children and thus refereed profound sibling interactions such as “Make her stop looking out my window!”	One child so she missed out on lots of parenting’s most challenging and rewarding experiences
Needed to	Deal with children’s sins	Endure watching her sinless kid be killed
Grew by	Learning from my mistakes, and loving kids beyond their sins	????  When you’re born sinless and have one sinless kid, how much growing do you require?
Was pregnant	While raising other children and working fulltime outside the house – this is a HUGE challenge	Without the strain of other children or working outside the home
Developed	Emotional and physical intimacy with spouse aligned with church teachings on marriage	Only emotional intimacy with spouse and thereby contradicted church teachings about performing one’s “marital duty”
Spousal physical intimacy is taught by church hierarchy to be	Beautiful, natural and necessary – grounds for annulment if not performed	“Stained”, “spotted”, and “sinful” since her perpetual virginity is taught as preserving her as “stainless”, “unspotted” and “sinless”
Travelled to other countries	By car, plane, boat and train with passport and visa in hand	On foot or the back of a donkey without giving any cares regarding border crossing as an alien
Resided	In different towns and states in my home country	In a foreign country as a refugee alien, as well as in different towns and regions within her native country
Eventually	Will die	Was sucked into heaven as though by a Holy Hoover vacuum

There are vast differences in women’s lives as well as marriage and motherhood experiences.  This is especially true when it comes to Mary.  She was sinless raising a sinless kid.  That’s a very different experience than the rest of humanity.  How do you then say, “But you should imitate it?”  If God wanted another sinless human, doesn’t God have the power to cause another person to be born pre-redeemed, free from original sin?  Quite simply, if God wanted me to be Mary, why didn’t God just make another Mary? 

I think a lot of people experience emotional and spiritual angst pursuing someone else’s calling rather than their own.  Why do Church leaders encourage women to imitate Mary rather than pursue their own genuine and unique callings?  Wouldn’t it be better to advise people to pursue who God asked them to be rather than who God asked somebody else to be?

Do church leaders really want women to imitate Mary which would include her marital relations with her husband?  The church and humanity would become extinct pretty quickly.

Do Church leaders try to appeal to women’s egos by putting Mary on a pedestal and then encouraging women to strive towards an unachievable goal imitating her?  Is this a feigned “honoring” of women meant to divert attention from marginalization and discrimination of women in the church? 

To me, Mary isn’t any stronger role model for me as a woman than she is for any man.  She shows men and women how to defer their personal will to the will of God.  That carries no gender specificity.  

Questions on Church Governance

A governance model is all about power; it defines who has power to set roles, make decisions, set policies, perform various acts, and hold others accountable.  Rather than attempt to categorize the church’s governance model as “absolute monarchy”, “constitutional monarchy”, “medieval hierarchy”, “democracy” or some hybrid, maybe it’s better to explore church governance from a practical standpoint.  Who really has power to do what? 

The church hierarchy doesn’t control people’s access to or relationship with the Holy Trinity.  It doesn’t control access to piety practices; anyone can obtain a rosary and pray it.  It doesn’t control access to education or information, especially not since the advent of the printing press and internet.  Though the hierarchy opine about politics and politicians, it doesn’t control how people vote.  It doesn’t control most people’s food, clothing or housing decisions. 

It seems in most societies, church hierarchy has almost no if any power over laypeople, except those employed by the church.  Though the hierarchy created almost two thousand rules in Canon Law, and though some of those rules outline consequences for infractions, there is little if any power to force laypeople’s compliance, again, unless the layperson works for the church.  Without effective compliance enforcement mechanisms, the church hierarchy is largely powerless.  Do laypeople realize this?  Do the clergy realize this?

One might assert, “But the hierarchy does control access to the sacraments…”  Maybe this is why some clergy try to use sacramental access as a compliance tool.  However, examining each of the sacraments, yields a realization that this not unilaterally true. 

Baptism:  The hierarchy acknowledges baptisms administered by most other Christian denominations.  And, anyone, even laypeople, can baptize in an emergency. 

Reconciliation:  Though only baptized Catholics are supposed to use this sacrament, most priests are thrilled to have anyone come during their hours of reconciliation.   No one checks credentials of a penitent to ensure their right to be in the confessional. 

Anointing of the Sick:  Again, though this is supposed to be for baptized Catholics, no one checks credentials.  In deathbed scenarios when a person is successful rousing a priest, I’m unaware of any instances where the priest denied either an anointing, reconciliation or baptism regardless of credentials. 

Eucharist:  Though there is an illusion of control here, there’s really not.  I offer this anecdote as food for though.  A person once told me that reading my blog inspired joining the Catholic Church.  Given my cultural bias, I assumed the person had participated in the formal Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program.  However, this person explained they just started going to Mass and receiving communion and thereby felt a member of the church.  Rarely does a Eucharistic minister deny communion to anyone.

Yes, there are high profile individuals whose communion practices receive great public scrutiny due to some pronouncement by members of the hierarchy.  But most people, even if shunned by the local parish, have enough mobility and obscurity to attend other parishes where they would be just another anonymous recipient of the sacrament.  So, no, the church hierarchy does not really control this sacrament despite many efforts to create the illusion it does.

This leaves only three remaining sacraments: Confirmation and the two lifetime vocational sacraments of Holy Orders and Marriage all of which require credential verification.  Confirmation candidates must show evidence of baptism and sometimes of instruction and service.  In turn, Confirmation is a gateway sacrament to Holy Orders and Marriage. 

Confirmation: Hierarchical officials do control this sacrament.  But, what is the impact of not receiving it from a church approved person?  Sometimes proof of Confirmation is required to perform unpaid labor as a volunteer liturgical minister or for church employment.  However, many if not most church-sponsored ministries don’t require Confirmation credentials.  One can be an usher, a greeter, choir member, refreshment server or preparer, cleaner, advocate for the poor, etc… without being confirmed.  With the internet and self-publishing, one can even be a religious educator outside the hierarchy’s control.  Ministerial work outside church-sponsored groups definitely doesn’t require Confirmation.  Therefore, Confirmation isn’t a tangible concern for most Catholics unless they wish to act as unpaid labor in certain liturgical ministries or receive one of the two vocational sacraments.

Marriage:  In many countries civil unions associated with legal rights and responsibilities are controlled by the secular government with church leaders having been granted the authority to perform such unions.  This is separate from a sacramental union though. With sacramental marriage, the two parties confer the sacrament upon each other with some authorized church person officiating to witness the conferral.  This is why deacons and religious sisters can perform marriage ceremonies done outside of a Mass.  A priest is not needed. 

If one does not confer the sacrament upon one’s life partner in the presence of an authorized church member, what does that impact?  The rules say they aren’t supposed to receive Communion but as mentioned before there is no enforcement.  So, that’s an empty rule.  As with Confirmation, compliance with church marriage practices sometimes limits the unpaid volunteer work open to a person and some paid church positions.  However, I believe that a priest is not supposed to deny sacramental care for children from such unions.  So, with the current governance model, what is the true impact of non-compliance?

Holy Orders:  The hierarchy also does control access to this sacrament. But an amount of control has been shifted because a bishop validly but illegally (in the eyes of many hierarchical leaders) ordained some women and a female bishop. 

However, some sacramental administration and decisions regarding paid and volunteer labor seem to be the only unique powers requiring the sacrament of Holy Orders.  Since most sacraments can be obtained without presenting credentials, that’s really mostly an illusion of power.  And, even if a hierarchical leader banishes someone from performing unpaid work for the ecclesial institution, the person still can imitate Christ’s work with the poor, sick and marginalized outside of church-sponsored groups - and the person can do this without sacramental credentials.  Therefore the power entrusted to hierarchical leaders seems to be an illusion also, at least as pertains to the laity.

The hierarchy does have real powers over clergy, avowed religious, Catholic school employees and perhaps even Catholic school children.  However, according to statistics, in the U.S. the number of those in positions controllable by the hierarchy is falling off the proverbial cliff while numbers of laypeople outside their control is increasing. 

U.S. Figures	1965	2011	Percent Change
Total Priests	58,632	39,466	33% lower
Diocesan Priests	35,925	26,837	25% lower
Number of Ordinations	994	467	53% lower
Sisters	179,954	55,944	69% lower
Brothers	12,271	4,606	62% lower
Catholics	48.5 Million	77.7 Million	60% higher
Parishes	17,637	17,782	0.1% higher
Catholic  Schools	10,038	6,980	30% lower
Students in Catholic Schools	3.441 Million	2.142 Million	38% lower

Of late, the profoundly shrinking ranks of hierarchical leaders are making more aggressive attempts to assert control over the increasing number of laypeople.  Yet the hierarchy has no powers over the masses of laypeople unless the laypeople submit to it.   Does the key to church reform lie in the increasing masses of the Catholic lay population, or in the dwindling ranks of hierarchical members?  Sadly, many of those desiring church reform leave because they feel they cannot change the minds of an entrenched hierarchy.  In doing so, have these people granted more powers to the hierarchy than are actually due? 

By the way, the governance model in Jesus’ time was pretty simple.  He interacted with apostles, disciples and unaffiliated people alike, speaking directly to all of them.  He explicitly told the apostles not to lord it over others, and that he desired mercy more than sacrifice.  That’s about the extent to the governance model he instilled.  Why did the clergy complicate that so much?  Why do the masses of laypeople that outnumber the clergy by almost 2,000 to 1 permit the complication?  With only 23% Mass attendance, do the masses permit it or just leave? 

Questions arising from the church's teaching on birth control

Lately church hierarchy finds literally re-translating things from source Latin to English a very important activity.  They did this for the Mass, telling the faithful it rendered a more accurate and beautiful translation.  Like the Mass text, papal encyclicals are written originally in Latin and then translated.  I am sorry to report that the current English translation of the papal encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae, suffers from dynamic translation issues much like the former Mass translation did.  Surely the same Vatican officials who forced the new Mass translation have endured many sleepless nights regarding this.  Therefore, in the interest of easing the worries of those literal Latin enthusiasts and since today ends National “Natural Family Planning Awareness Week” in the U.S., I thought a literal re-translation of Humanae Vitae was very fitting. 

Humanae Vitae contains a few key statements, one of which supposedly pertains to every occasion of sexual intercourse needing to be open to conception.  The official Latin text says this:

Verumtamen Ecclesia, dum homines commonet de observandis praeceptis legis naturalis, quam constanti sua doctrina interpretatur, id docet necessarium esse, ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat.

Humanae Vitae’s English translation appearing on the Vatican website, reads:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

But a literal translation actually finds the document says this:

The truth however, the Church, urging humans to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which constant is interpreted by her doctrine, teaches that it is necessary that each use of marriage, by itself to the procreation of human life, was destined to continue.

The literal translation has a different meaning than the current English translation.   Awkwardly or perhaps as the traditionalist Catholic might say, “More poetically” the corrected translation asserts that each use of marriage by itself was destined to continue the procreation of human life, i.e. result in bringing forth offspring, i.e. conceive.  This statement actually contradicts the immediate preceding statements in the document. 

Revera, ut usu noscitur, non ex unaquaque coniugali congressione nova exoritur vita. Deus enim naturales leges ac tempora fecunditatis ita sapienter disposuit, ut eadem iam per se ipsa generationes subsequentes intervallent.

Literally translated this says:

The fact is, as experience shows, not out of each and every act of conjugal union arises a new life. For God and the times of the natural laws of fertility so wisely arranged that the generations of the same by itself now spaced.

Unfortunately the Vatican’s English translation again employs a more dynamic translation that must be considered as offensive to the hierarchy as the former dynamic Mass translation.

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.

A couple of things to observe:

1.  Humanae Vitae pertains only to married people.  It repeatedly speaks about conjugal union or the marriage act.  The word “coitus” refers to “sexual intercourse” in general.  The word “conjugal” means, “of or pertaining to marriage or the relations between husband and wife.” 

2.  Reassembling the paragraph’s flow, Humanae Vitae says that not every act of conjugal union arises in new life due to natural spacing of fertility but the church has always taught that each use of marriage is destined to conceive.  Simplified even further, it says that although each act of conjugal union doesn’t result in conception, we’ve always taught it does.  Oh, o.k…. 

By the way, the church teaches that each and every act of sexual intercourse (versus conjugal union) should remain open to the conception of children.  However, that is not what the Latin actually says.  Yet that is what church leaders teach.

Another key statement in Humanae Vitae is this:

Item quivis respuendus est actus, qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur.

Literally translated, it means this:

Likewise to be spat out, is any act which in anticipation of or after conjugal relations, or effected by or to its natural outcomes proposes whether as an end or the way it intends to be applied in order to render procreation impossible.

Sadly again I must show the English translation from the Vatican website, exposing its deviances from a literal translation:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Much like the literalist believes metaphorical phrases like “dewfall” are so important to recapture in the Mass translation, I think we should insist upon the literal translation of Human Vitae that preserves poetic phrases like “spat out.”  Anyway, simply stated, literal translation of the Latin tells us that married people should not do things that make it impossible to procreate, i.e. conceive.

This is a very interesting statement to ponder.  The church teaches that God is all-powerful, even causing a virgin to conceive.  Mary doubted this asking the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, “How is this possible since I haven’t had relations with a man (LK 1:34)?”  But the angel of the Lord reassured her, “…for nothing will be impossible for God (LK 1:37).” 

Doesn’t this statement in Humanae Vitae directly contradict what the messenger of God stated?  Doesn’t it limit God, making God less than all-powerful?  Isn’t this grievously problematic from a theological standpoint: both refuting a message from the Lord, and limiting the power of God?  Indeed Jesus’ conception outside of the marriage act and Mary’s unwillingness to have sexual relations with her husband directly violate church teachings.  This seems problematic too.

Regardless, every method of birth control has incidences where conceptions still occur.  This seems to highlight that God is more powerful than human efforts to prevent pregnancy.  Thus, is it even possible to suggest married couples can render conception impossible if God wills a conception should occur?

The church teaches that married people cooperate with God to bring forth new life.  This is a very humbling and beautiful thing.  Humanae Vitae discusses what does or doesn’t constitute cooperating with God’s will for conceiving children.  Though it proposes to re-examine church teachings based upon new understandings, it actually doesn’t.  It just regurgitates centuries-old teachings and basically says they are right “because we always said they were right and we said we’re always right too so we were right”.  In the world of logic, this is a classic example of the logic error called, “circular logic.”

Nonetheless, Humanae Vitae examines some important concerns such as the possibility governments might try to control conception.  The Chinese government with its one-child law comes close to this regulating number of births though not specific timing of conception.  Therefore, Humanae Vitae does pose some valid questions for society to ponder.

Laying aside the debate about what does or doesn’t constitute married people cooperating with God’s will, aspects of Humanae Vitae are improperly taught.  For example birth control usage in any circumstance is declared evil though Humanae Vitae only applies to married relations.  In the meantime, more than 40% of births occur to unwed mothers.  Wouldn’t it seem reasonable for the church to encourage unmarried people who engage in sexual relations to use birth control as the lesser of two evils?  Promoting the lesser of two evils is regularly used within Catholic moral theology.

Finally, in honor of the week’s theme, I must say something about Natural Family Planning (NFP).  In Humanae Vitae, the church clearly teaches that NFP is o.k. even though its intention is to prevent conception.  As an aside, by definition, that is contraception – something that tries to avoid conception – though NFP advocates vehemently deny it is contraception.  Nonetheless, permission of contraception while banning contraception is another example of the document contradicting itself.  Humanae Vitae splits this hair by saying that in one case contraception occurs while open to conception though trying to avoid it, while in the other cases contraception occurs while trying to avoid conception.  This is curious because according to NFP resources, NFP methods have as high or higher effectiveness rates than the other contraceptive methods.  So it would seem that since other methods result in as many or more pregnancies, they are every bit as or more open to conception as NFP.  It would also seem that NFP is more capable of avoiding pregnancy and thereby frustrating God’s will, thus making it more evil than other forms of birth control.

The document also states that using contraceptive methods for non-contraceptive purposes is o.k.  For example someone with endometriosis is o.k. to use hormone therapy, i.e. the birth control pill.  Here’s a little table to summarize the church’s teaching:   

      

	Husband and Wife Intend to Prevent Conception	Husband and Wife Don’t Intend to Prevent Conception
Natural Family Planning	OK	OK
Other forms of birth control	NOT OK	OK

I also think “Natural Family Planning” is a misnomer.  A woman tracking the thickness of her cervical mucus and taking her temperature regularly are not natural parts of a woman’s day.  They are not natural precursors to marital relations.  These contraceptive methods are called “natural” because they are said to cooperate with nature versus other contraceptive methods that evidently are believed to not cooperate with nature. 

Again this raises serious theological questions.  The church teaches God is the creator of everything – everything – that includes contraceptive devices does it not?  Indeed scripture explains that humans have no power except that which God permits and that God reveals only that which God chooses to reveal.  Thus, is it not good theology to say that God has given us these contraceptive devices because God could have confused the minds of humans preventing them from discovering these capabilities?

I guess the thing that keeps plaguing me though as I reflect upon Humanae Vitae is this: Why does the church’s hierarchy believe in such a weak God?  How powerful is the God in which you believe?