I was struck last night by some comments by Bill O’Reilly about the Catholic Church’s teaching on artificial contraception while interviewing Senator Rick Santorum on Fox News. Rick Santorum was defending his statement that states have the right to ban artificial contraception. He thinks they should not do it, but he feels they have the right. Bill O’Reilly, who is Catholic, went on to say some interesting things……..
• 98% of Catholics don’t follow the teaching: What’s the point here? If 98% of the people in the 1700’s thought slavery was OK, then it must have been OK. If 98% of people think you should jump off a bridge, you should do it.
• It’s like eating meat on Friday: Abstaining from meat on Friday is a simple church discipline, not a moral teaching. The only sin in eating the meat is disobeying the authority that Christ left on earth. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven….” (see Mat 16:19).
• It’s a man-made doctrine; Jesus didn’t say it: Contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, cloning, etc. were not an issue of controversy for the Jewish people in Jesus’ time, so it makes sense that He would not talk about it. Further, if Jesus said nothing about these things, we must conclude they are all OK?
Sometimes we need to step way back and look at the big picture. Jesus founded a Church, not a book. If there really is a God and He really cares about us, He would make sure we have a way to know what is true and what is not true, in terms of what to believe (faith) and how to behave (morals). He would not leave us orphans. He would give us an authoritative Church to guide us; One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church (Catholic means universal by the way).
I would correct O'Reilly on this: all those issues but cloning were indeed issues in the time of Christ. The Didache c. 60s AD covers abortion and, I believe, homosexuallity. The Church has been fighting this battle a long time...
ReplyDeleteRight on...I was embarrassed and dismayed (though I should not have been surprised) that O'Reilly would be so "ignorant" as to state such things. His dissent about artificial contraception was evident. And Rick's facial expression screaming "you moron!" was humorous. Kyrie, eleison!
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteO’Reilly did not comment on all those social issues; I did. Although some of them may have existed in the time of Jesus, were they really major controversial theological issues in the Jewish culture Jesus was in? Really?
It goes to show that we have done a great job of creating leaders through our Catholic elementary, high school and universities, but a horrible job of making Catholic leaders.
ReplyDeleteI don't think O'Reilly was disagreeing with him. Most Catholics would have sadly said the same thing as O'Reilly. It looked like he was just testing him, because that's what he is going to be facing. He needs to be asked those tough questions. Any thoughts? Go Santorum
ReplyDeleteHuelsingmike,
ReplyDeleteI agree he was “testing” as he likes to do. But I remember another occasion, when he was interviewing atheist Richard Dawkins, he said something like…..Jesus is not God; I don’t buy it, so I wonder how seriously he takes his faith.
The O'Reilly, No Spin Zone is definitely a NO CCD Zone.
ReplyDeleteHe often stakes his Catholicity with his years under Sister So-In-So,who according to him would take to him with her ruler.
She should have been aiming for his head, cuz he definitely doesn't know his faith as well as he thinks.
While I do like to hear his political opinions, I'm deeply embarrassed by what he claims are Catholic truths.
He needs to study his faith as much as he does the political landscape.
The points in your post are the same one's that stuck me when I saw the interview, just didn't get to post on them. You hit the nail on the head.
Ann Coulter is another one that needs to do the same. Where's Sister's ruler when you need it.
Good job on the analysis...
WestCoastCatholic
Rick Santorum's unapologetic stand on Catholic teaching may awaken the Catholic semsibilities of the second largest religious group--fallen away Catholics--and revive our commitment to the dignity of man. This will polarize many, but it may well unite those who have longed for Truth. Perhaps he will have oppurtunity to explain the Catholic teaching and heighten understanding for those who are open to the Truth. God bless and protect this truthbearer.
ReplyDelete"Ann Coulter is another one that needs to do the same. Where's Sister's ruler when you need it."
ReplyDeleteOnly that A.C. to my knowledge does not identify as a Catholic.
But then again, she has issues with general human decency and she is defintely a human being.
Bill is typical of liberal American Catholics but I like the fact that it gives Santorum an early venue to spar lightly because it's true what Bill says, they won't be as tame as him if and when Santorum does get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteActually homosexuality is condoned in 1 Cor.6:9, and murder is condoned. Thinking that it wasn't an issue at the time of Christ is ignorant.
ReplyDeleteAlso I feel that it is shallow to support Rick Santorum based on the fact that he is Catholic. He is still a politician and seems to be a warmonger. That is just my opinion. I am a highly devoted Catholic supporting Ron Paul because I am worried about the future of our country and he seems to be the only man in politics preaching common sense. He also is the only man that isn't simply following the crowd. He actually hasn't changed his views!!
CatholicVote.org has recently called him a racist and has taken many shots at him that are quite childish really while praising Santorum in everything he does based on his faith.
Sorry to down Santorum but believe me it isn't because he is Catholic, or that the other candidates are not for that matter, but that he is a fickle republican.
Just because Paul mentioned it doesn't mean it was a great theological issue. He was just mentioning things that won't get you into the kingdom of God. It was a passing mentioning, homosexuality is rarely addressed in the bible.
DeleteAlejandro,
DeleteI agree that is was not an issue in Jewish circles (your original statement) but it certainly was an issue in the circles Paul's letter is adressed to (though probably a side issue).
Paul's letters (or the entire NT for that matter) is not a cover-all theological textbook but a collection of writings penned for a specific purpose and specific audience. Hence there are verses in the letters we cannot understand because we lack the contextual knowledge the original audience had (like hearing only one sided of a telephone conversation).
Hence, how often or rarely a topic is adressed in the Bible is of no consequence, especially if it is universally condemned at all times. However, the context of how it is adressed is relevant: homosexuality is mentioned in the OT and in the NT always side by side with other sins and transgressions. It should therefore not be singled-out as something special. (Though I take that the "something special" approach is often due to the other side of the house wishing to drop mentioning this - and only this - item.)
Willieray,
Homosexuality is condoned? Murder is condoned? Did you not rather mean condemned? (PS. I see that you have now clarified matters. Still, the two are not simply "not condoned", they are condemned.)
Hi willieray! Welcome to our blog!
ReplyDeleteI am confused at your statement that homosexuality and murder is condoned on 1 Cor 6:9. Did you mean condemned?
The NAB reads: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites"
I meant to say that they are not* condoned but I had to re-type my statement because the message didn't post the first time. The word "sodomites" means homosexuals and reads homosexuals in many translations. Murder is obviously pointed out in the Bible but I didn't use a verse to show it but if you need proof you can look to the ten commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy or James 5:6 in the NT.
ReplyDeleteBut really feel many Catholics like Santorum based on the fact he is Catholic and I feel this to be an injustice. Can someone explain when Santorum became infallible? Every Catholic blogger online is trying to make him out to be a saint. Ron Paul makes him look like a babbling ignoramus. Santorum is only going to get the US in deeper debt and anger other countries.
No one thinks Santorum is infallible - he might just be the best of the bunch.
DeleteThe question is when did Ron Paul become infallible who in my book sounds more like a babbling ignoramus himself.