Posted on 03/13/2007 7:03:12 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The saga continues.
In the latest development, Fox News analyst Father Jonathan Morris, a priest with the Legionaries of Christ — whose founder, Father Marcial Maciel, had multiple accusations of sexual abuse made against him and was disciplined by the Vatican — wrote an "open letter" defending Sean Hannity and criticizing Father Tom Euteneuer.
Morris' letter can be found here.
Euteneuer has responded, writing his own "open letter" to Morris:
Dear Father Jonathan,
Your letter to Sean Hannity indicates that you did not know that I asked to speak to him in private about this matter in 2004 otherwise you may have tempered your remarks about my supposed lack of charity in dealing with a high profile Catholic who dissents from clearly-defined and reiterated Church teachings. You also seemed to be unaware of the fact that Sean was the one who invited me on his program and who then promptly '[threw] civility to the wind,' refused to display 'cultivated intelligence' on the issues and jeopardized another person's 'reputation and dignity.'
May I also point out that you did not employ with me the same standard of 'fraternal correction' that you expected me to employ with Mr. Hannity. I at least made the attempt to speak to him about this issue in private without success; you, in contrast, went immediately to the Internet to take me to task. I do not intend to understand your motives; I can only evaluate what I see in your actions.
The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn't you have been the one to have had those 'private conversations' on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean 'in person' that you 'disagreed with him,' was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing — Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, 'Why?' While we are on the subject, have you also analyzed and disagreed with Bill O'Reilly's perfectly horrible disdain for the Holy Father and the Church that you represent?
The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people's souls but also ruin people's lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls. We used to recognize 'admonishing the sinner' as one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and I consider my admonishment of Mr. Hannity to have been done in that spirit. I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.
As a seminary rector, I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public. We have tons of those types in the clergy already. I would advise you to drink deeply of the wisdom of the Number Two man at our Headquarters who has in no uncertain terms told all of us that high profile dissenters are a scourge and a danger to souls. [See item: 'Bertone: Dissident Catholics More Worrying Than Atheists.'
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011003.html.]I wish you fraternal blessings for your priestly work.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President
Human Life International
Ping, would like to hear your take..
One thing to consider is that ALL Christian denominations considered contraception immoral until the Anglicans changed their position at the 1930 Lambeth Conference (Resolution 15).
Please note the words from the 1920 Lambeth Conference:
We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage.
Contrast that with the words of the 1930 Lambeth Conference:
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.
Take a look then at the Lambeth Conference of 1958:
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
So maybe the question shouldn't be, Does the Catholic church consider artificial contraception akin to abortion or is this more of a 'don't eat meat on Friday' sort of rule?, maybe it should be more along the lines of "Why did the Protestant churches change their tune? Why, if something was immoral in 1920, did it become the responsible thing to do in 1958?
(Please note, I cited the Anglican church as an example. The other denominations had, to my knowledge, a similar pro(?)gression)
Nine lousy seconds.
THBBBBBBBBBbbbbbbbbbttt!
Perhaps the Protestant churches wanted to limit the growth of "brown people", like Margaret Sanger.
(Hierarchy, not laity)
OOPs, I mean as did Margaret Sanger.
Eating meat on Friday is not a grave sin. Contraception is. Yoy go to hell if you don't repent and stop contraception. You will not go to hell for eating meat on Friday. Eating meat on Friday is a Church Law. Contraception is God's Law.
Fr. Euteneuer was awesome on TV. He said he wanted people to control themselves. I think that is the real issue. Without self discipline people remain mired in hopeless poverty. Sex is just part of that equation.
The majority of Christians are Catholics. In addition, the Orthodox Church was until very recently universally opposed to contraception, and a number of Protestant Churches are also. So most Christians in theory hold to a religion that considers contraception immoral.
Does the Catholic church consider artificial contraception akin to abortion or is this more of a 'don't eat meat on Friday' sort of rule?
Onan was killed by God for practicing contraception (Genesis 38), the New Testament condemns pharmakeia (Galatians 5, Revelation 21 and 22), and common sense tells us the natural end of intercourse is attempted pregnancy, so it is considered a natural law to not purposefully block insemination and fertilization.
Not eating meat on Friday is an Apostolic Tradition - the Apostles instituted a weekly fast on Wednesdays and Fridays that included abstaining from meat - see the Didache. This was to differentiate Christians from the Jews, who fasted on Monday and Thursday.
Didn't Fr. Morris used to broadcast from Rome for EWTN? If it's the same guy it makes me sad.
To be honest, that may have been a factor in some areas. The bigger one was, honestly, what to do about "poor" families who couldn't afford another mouth to feed. So barrier contraception (the pill wasn't around then) was seen by the Anglicans as a last resort.
NFP is going along similar paths. Most people who use NFP to avoid pregnancy are not doing so because of dire need, but because they don't want a child right now.
I've seen Fr Morris on FoxNews alot (remember his coverage after the Pope died which was very good) and up until this last column of his, I had great respect for him - he seemed a very loyal, faithful priest.
I'm disappointed with him because he HIMSELF now has caused scandal to the faithful. By giving Hannity a pass without even MENTIONING the grave sins Fr E spoke about (i.e. Hannity's support of artificial BC and abortion in cases or rape and incest) he is tacitly approving of Hannity's argumentation. This is SCANDALOUS that a priest would not defend his fellow priest in admonishing a public dissident.
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.