Save the Liturgy, Save the Large Family

Jay Boyd - Liturgy, Family

\"Jay

When I first posted “What If I’m Wrong About NFP?” on my own blog, this comment appeared:

This is what it looks like in the trenches…One or two couples out of thirty in these prep classes have an understanding of Church teaching. Most are openly living together and contracepting. Even those who go to Mass every weekend are often introduced to the reasons behind the teaching against contraception for the first time at our session!

It does seem to be true that in American society, most couples – even Catholics – live together and/or are having sex before marriage, and often they are using some kind of illicit contraception. Bishops, priests, and the laity are all quite aware of this, I believe.

And why are people living this way? Here’s an opinion I’ve voiced elsewhere[1]:

Around the time of Humanae Vitae and Roe v. Wade, Catholics had also been introduced to the Novus Ordo, and they were being shown – intentionally or not – that it was acceptable to tamper with the liturgy, to make it “more relevant”, to not follow the rubrics. What would this tell them about the Church? It would suggest that if we may interpret the “source and summit” the way we want to, then surely we may interpret other Church teaching that way, too. And it would suggest that surely we should be living contemporary lives; maybe the Church is just behind the times on this contraception thing.

Now, if we are free to re-write liturgical rules for the Mass, why should we not be free to form our consciences according to moral relativism? And this is what happened. Dissident theologians and priests, aided and abetted by silent bishops (and some vocal ones, as well), led the faithful astray by blatantly asserting that disobedience was the order of the day when it came to Humanae Vitae’s affirmation of the Church’s ban on contraception.

The changes in the Mass took away some of the mystery that had been there previously, including the mystery of the Eucharist. Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has declined outrageously since Vatican II. Reverence at the typical Novus Ordo Mass has declined compared to what it was (and still is) in the extraordinary form. The number of religious vocations has declined. The number of children born to Catholic families has declined. I don’t think all these things are unrelated.

The liturgy has suffered in its redefinition and revision; and our faith has suffered because of that: lex orandi, lex credendi.

The innovations and modifications that resulted in a weakening of the sense of reverence that was previously shown for the Eucharist include: receiving Holy Communion in the hand instead of on the tongue (which diminishes the sense of the Real Presence of Christ); allowing lay “ministers” to handle the Eucharist (creating a false sense of our “equality” with priests and therefore with Jesus); renovations that lower the sanctuary to the level of the people; removing “barriers” (like communion rails) between the people and the sanctuary; having the priest face the people as if he is a talk-show host; de-emphasizing the altar as a place of sacrifice and over-emphasizing the concept of Mass as a shared meal; introducing popular music as a replacement for Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony.

Likewise, our sense of the mystery, beauty, and inherent dignity of life – from conception to natural end, and even of life that has not yet been conceived – has been compromised by the innovations, modifications, and revelations of science. While scientific advances themselves have the potential to increase our sense of reverence for life, they can also be used for evil: the capability of creating a new human being outside the womb; the advances in fertility treatment that result in “extra” babies being aborted; the use of human embryos to harvest stem cells for research. All of these things give us the sense that we mere creatures have become Creators, able to “create” (and destroy) life at our own whim; able to regulate the health and genetic soundness of that life; and able to “create” or “not create” that life as we see fit – as if life is just another commodity or resource we must learn to exploit to our advantage.

To recap:

After Vatican II, the liturgy changed…dramatically: Less reverence…less respect…fewer “absolutes”…

After Vatican II, Humanae Vitae confirmed the Church’s perennial teaching against contraception, but dissident theologians and clergy encouraged dissent and rebellion against that teaching: Less reverence for life…less respect for large families…fewer “absolutes”…

People saw that the Church could change the liturgy; why couldn’t the Church change the teaching on contraception? And why didn’t She?! If the stodgy old men in Rome won’t make the Church more “contemporary”, the faithful must do it themselves… right?!

So the Catholic faithful were taught to follow their consciences with regard to birth control, and a whole bunch of them chose illicit contraception. Family size decreased. The vocations “crisis” ensued. Etc.

Interestingly, if you find a group of people who attend the EF Mass regularly, you will often find large families. While correlation does not imply causation, it’s worth a try: if we return to the reverence and mystery and awe of the EF Mass, perhaps we can recover the sense of reverence and mystery and awe of life that leads couples to embrace the concept of not limiting the number of children they will accept from God.

Save the liturgy, save the large family.

But instead, for now, NFP has been called in to save the day. The commenter mentioned above added:

In defense of NFP teachers, we need to meet people where they are before we hit them with the deeper issues behind Catholic teaching. \”Hmmm, NFP might work for us…\” is a more possible step than \”I need to get off contraception and be open to life!\” Though I have seen this happen too, happily!

There is some truth to this statement, too: Our bishops and priests have neglected to talk about the evil of contraception for over 40 years now; thus, NFP teachers have to deal with the contraceptive mentality of today’s culture, which has infected an overwhelming proportion of Catholics. The teaching of NFP is being promoted by the bishops, it appears, because “if we don’t teach them NFP, they’ll use contraception.” That may well be true. The illicit use of NFP is to be preferred over the use of illicit contraception, because it is permitted to choose a lesser evil over a greater evil – but only if there is no other option.

But there is another option to contraception and NFP:  total abstinence for the time during which the crisis exists (e.g., the couple can abstain until a medical problem is alleviated). There’s no need for charts, and there’s 100% effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy.

And there are options about what is taught in pre-marriage classes. Teach the evil of contraception. Teach the sanctity and value of life – the blessings and joys – and yes, the sacrifices – of large families. Teach the need for “serious reasons” to avoid procreation.

Teach the Truth.

And follow the thread back to the source: restore to the liturgy the dignity, reverence, and devotion that is proper to the worship of God – who is, after all, the Author of Life.


[1] In my article “Abortion, Contraception, and the Liturgy”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, October, 2009.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

12 thoughts on “Save the Liturgy, Save the Large Family”

  1. If you are advocating total abstinence for serious reasons, then would you advocate total and final abstinence, even after menopause, for any couple who chose to be sterilized? As you have shared your personal story in your writings, I’m curious if you would advocate such a measure. After all, sterilized couples are not embracing an ‘open to life’ mentality.

  2. This link you draw between Latin liturgy and large families is amazing and interesting, but unlikely in my opinion. Legalistic restorationism will not bring people closer to Jesus, or even bring them to knowing Him.
    Two things seem to be operating here: 1. You don’t like sex. 2. You regret not having a large family and romanticize about it. The good news is God does not reward us according to the number of children we have. He loves families of all sizes. Having a large one does not guarantee holiness. I prefer a small one for my good reasons; to each his or her own prudential judgment on this. My own mother suffered much misery with 3 unplanned pregnancies. She wanted to stop at 2. Raising 5 children in a de facto divorce marriage was, in her own words,” a living hell of hectic living.” A large family is not for every Catholic couple. Interestingly, the last 3 popes were one of three children.

  3. This really saddened me. I think that changes in the liturgy did not take away reverence but rather bring us closer to Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist. Some of your points, however, are valid and good for us to ponder.

    1. Anna, I totally agree with you on the changes in the liturgy bringing us closer to Christ, not taking away reverence. The mass in the common language of the people is a great triumph of Vatican II. I appreciate it now more than ever!!! Thank you for sharing your view on this.

  4. I recommend “What went wrong with Vatican II?” by Ralph McInerny and “The Courage to be Catholic” by George Weigel. Both shed a LOT of light on why everyone suddenly thought contraception was okay. The Novus Ordo didn’t cause it. The culture of dissent did, and both books describe where the culture of dissent actually came from. I was surprised by what I read.

    Furthermore, Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humane Vitae said explicitly that periodic abstinence was okay. Papal encyclicals are authoritative.

    The problem with contraception is that it renders a naturally fertile act infertile and attempts to impede God’s design for the human body. NFP does no such thing. Sex during certain times of the cycle is naturally infertile, because God made it that way. Contraception is about control over God’s design; NFP is about cooperation with it.

  5. If total abstinence is licit, then periodic abstinence is licit. If one can abuse periodic abstinence, one can abuse total abstinence. (I believe abusing NFP looks far more like a sexless marriage than contraception, which is a completely different problem.)

    So why not teach couples about their fertility? The health benefits alone are worth knowing.

    1. While both total and periodic abstinence are licit, periodic is preferred if possible. Lack of sexual intimacy in a marriage can be a source of temptation, and not just toward sexual sin. See 1 Corinthians 7:5.

  6. While there are issues with NFP, it is certainly a bridge to cross over from using artificial contraceptives. The attitudes may still need adjusting but it goes in the right direction, I think. Even Mother Teresa’s sisters teach NFP.

  7. Except, Jay, by throwing NFP away and calling for total abstinence, you are projecting your sexual needs onto others and you are trampling the Holy Spirit who inspired I Cor. 7:5 …not for you and not for all… but for Catholics for whom long abstinence is bad: ” Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” Later in I Cor. 7, Paul talks of those who need not get married to avoid fornication but they marry anyway but do not sin thereby…these people and yourself are those whom you are thinking of but the Holy Spirit amazingly is talking to you about two separate groups and you continue to ignore Him and imply that there is only one group…those who can abstain forever like St. Joseph did. But God said there are two groups not one…hence NFP is wisely given by the modern Popes even though Augustine slighted such techniques in a letter to his former manichaean leader. But Augustine was wrong about a number of things like the Immaculate Conception and like women being no help to men except for sheer physical procreation here:

    St. Augustine, De genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9
    “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman was not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”

    Frankly if the NY Times had known that passage when the sex scandal broke and printed it,we certainly would have looked like incipient gay central in our ancient texts. Popes trump the patristic tendency toward procreation only in sex because we now know the got it from Stoicism as here in Musonius Rufus, translation by Cora E Lutz, vol.X from the Yale Classical Studies at The Stoic Life.org
    Lecture XII-2: ” Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage.” Jerome tells you he gets his marriage ideas from Seneca and stoicism on sex recurs in him and two other Fathers here:
    Jerome: ” Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).
    Clement of Alexandria: ” To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” ” The Instructor of Children” 2:10:95:3.
    Lactantius: ” the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring” Divine Institutes 6:23:18.

    All three are stoicism really and are implicitly rejected by Humanae Vitae inter alia. But more importantly, Jay, do not keep ignoring I Cor. 7:5 which comes from the Holy Spirit. The Church is right to affirm NFP as a good because it makes obeying I Cor.7:5 possible…not for you…for the other group God acknowledged in I Cor.7:5 who partly marry to avoid fornication. Do not campaign against NFP because you think everyone is like you. God said there are two groups not one. Don’t contradict Him. You will not be rewarded for it to say the least.

  8. Pingback: Who Join Pope Francis Standing Up for Syrias Christians -BigPulpit.com

  9. Pingback: Save the Liturgy, Save the Large Family - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.