BilikFamily.com

Last weekend Nashua local Paul Sylvain wrote a really nasty editorial in the Sunday Nashua Telegraph about how it's so hard to be a Catholic because he thought the leadership kept making unnecessary and out-of-step-with-the-times rules. He threw out every stereotype and cliche of the past decade. I was happy to see that someone besides me was a bit outraged by it. Nashua local Don Scott followed up on it with an editorial response printed the following Sunday. I had drafted a response as well, but didn't submit it because I thought I was getting too long winded. I'll include it below...

---

Mr. Sylvain opens with calling the Catholic Church "my church and my faith", but then spends the rest of his editorial on a series of misinformation, ad hominem attacks, and other truly denigrating assertions and stereotypes.

He opens with the position of birth control and immediately ties that to the "rhythm method". Has he seen modern Natural Family Planning (NFP)? It complies fully with the Church's position on sexual morality for married couples yet is far from being the early "rhythm method". It's akin to comparing a modern computer to an early calculator. Many couples have successfully used NFP to plan their families and space their children. As for effectiveness, it is often more effective than the birth control pill when avoiding pregnancy is necessary. Mother Theresa's nuns in India have taught it to thousands of poor in Calcutta (i.e. it's not rocket science) with an effectiveness rate that far surpassed anything the UN and World Health Organization were pushing on the locals there. Unlike the pill modern NFP actually stabilizes marriage. Most studies show the divorce rates for couples practicing NFP is in the low single digit percentages. Compare that to the divorce rate of couples who use contraceptives or sterilize themselves. So is the Church foolish to advocate it?

He then mentions the death penalty. The teachings of the Catholic Church does not forbid recourse to the death penalty. It defers to state authority in judiciously administering it. Certainly it should be rarely needed, but it is not explicitly forbidden in the Catechism.

Luckily, thus far I've been spared Mr. Sylvain's previous writings on celibacy. I would reiterate that priestly celibacy is neither doctrine nor dogma. It is a discipline that the Church asks of those who would give themselves wholly to the priesthood. Speaking as a husband and father, I'm glad my priests are not distracted by the many holy sacrifices required in daily family life. I don't know if there are many spouses who could handle the 24/7 calling of the priestly vocation. It's not an 8 to 5 job.

Women are "seen by the Church as little more than baby making machines"? Please point to me which Vatican document he is referring to because I don't find that in any Church teachings. Why, then, are so many Catholic saints women, including the greatest in Catholic tradition, Mary? St. Luke's Gospel is full of stories about the women of Christ's time. Why has the current pope written so much about the dignity of women? Why has he named so many women, including wives and mothers, to sainthood during his papacy?

Famed early 20th century Catholic writer and apologist G.K. Chesterton said it best when he said women are not equal to men, but superior. Whereas men tend to be narrow and specialized, women are broad. He went on to praise a woman's domestic role as being broad, not narrow and specialized, as a man often is in the work force. In the workforce I am an engineer who can answer questions of digital design. I am something to everyone. A mother is everything to someone: her children. They look to her for everything. This is not to denigrate mothers who work, but I take offense at the dignity of full time mothers being derided as mere "baby making machines".

Mr. Sylvain continues referencing an AP report on a recent Vatican document on protecting families. "According to the document, obscuring the differences between men and women calls the traditional two-parent family structure into question by giving homosexual and heterosexual couples equal status."

Did Mr. Sylvain actually read the document or just the AP summary on it? Does he usually just depend on the AP, New York Times, and Boston Globe for his understanding of Church positions? Do we not see a big push by homosexual activists that they would provide an identical atmosphere for raising families as a traditional mother and father? Is the document really that far off in suggesting this?

He then goes on to take another swipe, this time at the lack of woman priests. While celibacy is a discipline the Church requires, it has the authority to change that discipline if it thought it best. What the Pope has reiterated is that he doesn't think the Vatican has the authority to ordain women priests. Mr. Sylvain may find it hard to believe that the Vatican admits limits to what it can declare in certain matters. He prefers to just consider it a preservation of the "good-old-boy club". It's amazing to me that neither Mother Theresa nor Mother Angelica saw themselves restricted because they couldn't be ordained and enter this "club".

He then makes yet another assertion that the Church would "rather see women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen." Enough with the tired cliches and stereotypes of Church positions! Then he says not to take him wrong, only to continue with an analogy of the Church leadership as goose stepping Nazis. I'm sorry. How was I not supposed to take it offensively?

The Church does not see women as a threat. At the same time the Church is resisting the push where "equality with men" becomes being "just like men". For some modern extreme feminists movements, their goals are the ideals of both socialists and capitalists. For socialists it "frees" women from family life. For capitalists it provides more cheap labor. The Church has upheld a woman's special, yet unique feminine dignity in the modern world. If all you want to do is measure this against contraception and women priesthood, you're missing the point.

The rant then takes a turn towards the Church's opposition to the advancement of the homosexual agenda. He starts with a typical ad hominem attack that because of the recent priestly pedophile scandals, the Church is in no position to talk about sexuality. If you have a doctor who is a bit overweight and sedentary, do you ignore his advice to exercise and eat a healthy diet? The medical advice is sound, based on years of research, despite the doctor's failings to live it out well. Similarly Church positions on sexuality and marriage come from 2000 years of reflection and experience in the human condition (and guidance of the Holy Spirit), not some trendy position arising in the second half of the 20th century or Dr. Phil!

Regarding his statements on homosexual adoption, one might ask: With many, many already married couples trying desperately to adopt a child because of infertility, why would you not want those children awaiting adoption to have both the full roles of a mother and a father? I don't think anyone has (as you state) a fear of a "same-sex couple carrying on in the most intimate way in front of their children." However many would like children to know what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman. In a traditional household they see both up close on a daily basis. Look at the delinquency rates among children who don't have a father figure in the family. It is important that children see both roles where possible. Why deprive them of this when there are so many traditional couples trying to adopt?

Mr. Sylvain opens with a statement that Catholicism is his faith at its fundamentals. He then takes issue with Church positions on marriage, sex, and family life. God is the creator and origin of all three. They have existed for millennia and certain orderings have been the root of our society. The Church is trying to hold fast to what is important while adapting to the times where it is compatible with the teachings it has received from its founder and preserved for 2000 years. What some call a "fear of change", I call a healthy respect for what we've learned in history that works -- the conditions that promote stable marriages, families, and growing societies. Mr. Sylvain is concerned that the Church isn't progressing with the times. As Chesterton wrote, "When men have come to the edge of a precipice, it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress."