Popcak Cries Foul - and CatholicCitizens Capitulate

(Lame) Reason(s) Cited By CatholicCitizens.org site: REVISED COMMENTS RE: GREG POPCAK: EWTN Counselor on Sex Issues Stirs Controversy 11/8/2003 9:28:00 AM (Regarding Removal of Article By Bridgette O'Donnell - Catholic Family News, August 2003)

Author and EWTN personality Gregory Popcak claims his works are being unfairly twisted by his critics

CCI NOTES 11/10/03: After several communications with Greg Popcak and speaking (sic) the Catholic Family News, we have decided to take down Brigette (sic) O'Donnell's article criticizing Mr. Popcak's books.While there is no question that Natural Family Planning can be used improperly, Mr. Popcak's books are directed towards helping sincere Catholics deal with problems in a Catholic way. To the extent that draws criticism, that's fine, but much of what is being hurled at Mr. Popcak is personal insults and a stretching of his words far beyond what he claims they mean. Ms. O'Donnell is certainly entitled to her opinions of Mr. Popcak's work, and many share those views, but there is some question as to her motive, which shows in her review.

CCI NOTES 11/09/03: Greg Popcak has written to inform us that his books "have been reviewed by competent theologians, including Fr. Ronald Lawler, a founding member of the Society of Catholic Scholars and the only North American Member of the Pontifical Theological Academy. Fr. Lawer (sic) is the co-author of both The Teaching of Christ, and Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Defense, and Explanation. Here is what Fr. Lawler wrote in his Preface of For Better...FOREVER! "This is an important book, Popcak speaks a precious earthly wisdom and helps us to see how ordinary wisdom is enriched by the sublime wisdom of faith." "

Mr. Popcak said further that "Dr. Alan Schreck, author of Catholic and Christian (and also a highly regarded theologian who has sworn to the mandatum) says this about my writing on marriage, "Greg Popcak has a gift for making clear and striking the timeless Christian principles of marriage and married love. Written in a personal and engaging style, this exciting book blends sound psychology and authentic Catholic teaching in a way that promises to bring new vigor and vision to your marriage." "

Thanks to Mr. Popcak writing, we are also informed that Beyond the Birds and the Bees holds a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur from Bishop R. Daniel Conlon, Bishop of Steubenville. "Though my books are vetted by competent theologians both before and after publication," said Mr. Popcak, "I voluntarily resubmitted my works for review by three additional theologians (who have also sworn to the mandatum) who found my work not only free from error, but highly commendable."

As for the actual meaning of a NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR, we turned to the Catholic Information Network's 'Ask Father Mateo.' Father Mateo was asked the following:

"When an author of a religious ook or article presents his work to the local bishop for review, the bishop gives the work to a knowledgeable priest, who reads it and, if corrections are needed, returns it to the writer. When the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections, he marks it with his "Nihil obstat" (Latin for "no problem".) If the bishop is satisfied, he gives the work his "Imprimatur" (Latin for "let it be printed").

"If the writer belongs to a religious order or congregation, the rules of the order may require a first review by a member of the order. If the reviewer here is satisfied, he grants the work an "Imprimi potest" (Latin for "it can be printed".)

"Commonly, the three symbols are in this order: IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR. After the Imprimatur, one usually finds these words: "The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

"Dictionaries affirm that "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" are now English words and can be used in non-religious contexts." (for further information, see http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html)

Question: Was the purpose of the "Perverse Psychology, Profane Theology" article (recently removed by Catholic Citizens.org, after residing on their site a few months) to question the practice of NFP?

Answer: No. The article exposed and documented Popcak's strange ideas that he, his friends, and (dare I say it?) his followers like to pretend are in line with Catholic teaching...Ideas like God's orgasm in the Big Bang, horizontal and vertical use of the house surfaces for marital relations when young Jr. climbs into Mom and Pop's bed, the suggestion that teen brothers chart their teen sisters temps to learn NFP (to which some Catholic journalist -perhaps R. Dreher? - responded with an ineloquent, but appropriate, ICK!,)...not to mention Popcak's public remarks (on his website) that the Church offers "half-assed" (quote/unquote) marriage prep.

Weeks after the (obviously unwelcome) spotlight on Popcak's strange theological and so-called practical ideas, the "Catholic" psychotherapist cries "Foul!" and (like the proverbial pot that called the kettle black) does some rather convenient spin-doctoring of his own. For example, Popcak states that one of his books has the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur - but he doesn't reveal when it received that status.

And so, herein submitted are fact finding questions for Popcak and his unconvincing defenders: Exactly when did one of his books receive the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur? (Before or after the publication of the "Perverse/Profane" article?) Why were the NO/Imprimatur sought for only one book and not the others -or were the others denied that status? What does Popcak mean when he wrote that he "voluntarily REsubmitted his works for review by three additional theologians (who have sworn to the mandatum)"? Might that mean he previously submitted his works? If so, when, to whom, and with what results? What are the names of the "three additional theologians" to whom he "resubmitted" his works? Perhaps even most important, can Popcak prove his "critics" are out-of-bounds? Is he willing to state that was he misquoted in the "Perverse/Profane" article? Please, Mr. P, do respond clearly, concisely, with "yes" or "no" answers. After all, you are a public figure and you have a (dare I say?) moral responsibility to your audience for what you proffer as Catholic! And, please, Mr. P, when and if you do respond, kindly refrain from yet again advising that those with reasonable questions (a.ka. your critics) about your exposed perverse ideas should buy your books to find out what you really meant when you write that you believe in God's orgasm, think the "brother" chart idea a good one, ad nauseum. (There may be a sucker born every minute but, thanks be to God, I am not one of them.)

It would seem Popcak and friends have a difficult job since the (removed) article that exposed his "profane" theology directly quoted Popcak in his books and from his website. There is little Popcak and friends can do except try peer pressure (remember how Patrick Madrid of Envoy caved in to peer pressure after he blogged his doubts about Popcak's "brother chart" suggestion - only to later delete that particular blog?), hide behind those who "vetted" Popcak's books (whatever happened to "endorsed" - or is that word also a relic?), scream about the new "Inquisition," continue Popcak's legacy of vulgarity by making reference to the "Attack of the Spastic Sphincter People," and make absurd allusions that Catholics who embrace the Deposit of Faith, and who strenuously object to (sick) innovations "vetted" as Catholic, are equivalent to the "Lidless Eye." (To add further insult to injury, Popcak "apologists" obviously don't know their Tolkien.) There are some who suggest that Popcak could have admitted that it is his theology that is twisted...but they fail to grasp that would take care of his EWTN appearances, his radio show, his speaking engagements, and his book sales, wouldn't it?

Final Questions: What does Catholic Citizens.org mean by questioning the "motive" of the article's author? Doesn't that question, in and of itself, fall within the realm of making a judgment call? Perhaps CatholicCitizens should ask Mr. Popcak his motive for daring to share his deviant ideas about God's orgasms, his unseemly defense of violating the innocence of teens with the "brother" chart idea, his vulgar language on his weblog, etc. but also for daring to pretend his ideas are Catholic.

Wow. This is unbelievable. If nothing else, this will help provide fodder for those who seek to try to discredit NFP and scandalize (didn't that used to be a sin?) so many others.

I work with a teen group, and aside from being vaguely incestuous (remember raging hormones of teens?), I can't think of any teens who would go for the idea. Especially not with a sibling. And thank goodness for that.

So some judgments are ok (against Ms. O'Donnell) and others need to be retracted? Wow. I hoped and prayed this kind of self-important display of the new and different (read - deviant) ideas for the sake of something new would not rear it's ugly head at EWTN (and a few other places), but once Mother Angelica left the big day to day operations, I feared it would happen.

It is increasingly difficult to think of a single place where Catholicism hasn't been twisted, mutated or hijacked by some well-meaning or openly dissenting individual to the detriment of us all. It's like an Orwell novel, up is down, good is bad, etc...

NFP is only one piece of evidence provided to support the main issue, which is summed up in the "Perverse/Profane" article's conclusion:

It is more than unfortunate that Gregory Popcak is promoted as a "Catholic" psychotherapist, granted interviews on any "Catholic" broadcast, publishes "Catholic" books and speaks at any "Catholic" conferences. It is not just unfortunate; it is scandalous and cannot be ignored. Popcak promotes modernist psychology and covers its depravity with a "Catholic cloak". As the Church concisely stated when it described and condemned modernist tactics, "If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake."

So we have a "house that Jack built" scenario, so to speak:

1. Modernist psychology attempting to poison Catholicism, so that the faith undergoes a "particular reworking," resulting in--

2. Major confusion regarding what is thought to be Catholic teaching vs. what actually is Catholic teaching, which leads to--

3. A serious breach (pun intended) in the "security of the Catholic name," resulting in--

4. Scandal to the faithful.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.