Did Levada (the new defender of the Faith) advocate birth control?


#1

Pope Benedict has appointed William Levada to succeed him in the position he formerly held (as Cardnal Ratzinger) - the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Levada was formerly Archbishop of Portland, Oregon (where I live). An amazing story recently appeared in our local newspaper (the Oregonian), which included this:

In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn’t have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland parish. In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a priest in Whittier, Calif., the child’s mother had engaged “in unprotected intercourse . . . when (she) should have known that could result in pregnancy,” the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

See The Oregonian for the complete story.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was "simply code for, ‘What’s wrong with you, honey, aren’t you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?’ " And that, he notes, is completely counter to the church’s teachings, which hold that using contraceptives is “intrinsically evil.”

Did our new defender of the Faith allow a legal brief to be filed under his name accusing the mother of engaging in “unprotected intercourse?”


#2

Actually it was the lawyers of the Archdiocese of Portland who made the arugment in legal documents filed with the court. The Archbishop did not say such a thing.

If you go this thread, forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=65975, you will see this smear attempt appear there.

Rather than ask this, why don’t you attack the Pope for appointing him.


#3

This is just a smear attempt by the media. Here’s what actually happened.

In court:

Woman: This seminarian is the father of my child. His employer should pay me child support.

Employer (Archdiocese): You know that what you did causes children. We should not be liable for your choices.

…This in no way promotes birth control. Those who would raise a fuss read into the phrase “unprotected sexual intercourse” as promoting condom use, when in a legal setting, its required to specify exact actions which caused an outcome. There was no anti-dogmatic statements made.

Josh


#4

[quote=ByzCath]Actually it was the lawyers of the Archdiocese of Portland who made the arugment in legal documents filed with the court. The Archbishop did not say such a thing.
[/quote]

I understand that - maybe (probably) he didn’t realize what was in it at the time (though, knowing Levada, it would not surprize me if he knew). But now that it has become a public issue, he has been silent. Odd.

If you go this thread, forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=65975, you will see this smear attempt appear there.

Hmmm. I wondered if this topic has been discussed before, so I looked for “Uribe” (the seminiarian’s name) and got no hits (try it yourself). But the name appears in that thread. Something’s wrong with the search engine on this board!

Rather than ask this, why don’t you attack the Pope for appointing him.

Well, I wouldn’t want to ever attack the Pope, but I was deeply concerned when he appointed Levada. The man was a disaster for my Diocese - liberal and apathetic.


#5

[quote=DavidFilmer]I understand that - maybe (probably) he didn’t realize what was in it at the time (though, knowing Levada, it would not surprize me if he knew). But now that it has become a public issue, he has been silent. Odd.
[/quote]

What is there to say?

This was a legal pleading.

If people have trouble understanding the difference between civil legal pleadings and Church Teachings then I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first.

Well, I wouldn’t want to ever attack the Pope, but I was deeply concerned when he appointed Levada. The man was a disaster for my Diocese - liberal and apathetic.

Of course you won’t attack the Pope directly, but you are questioning his actions.


#6

Peace be with you!

I’m from Portland and so I saw an article about this in The Oregonian last week. And get this–they quoted the guy that’s the president of CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE saying that the archdiocese’ actions in the case (the wording of their statement) “disgusted” him or something to that extent. And this man is the president of Catholics For a Free Choice…and the statement seeming to support birth control is appalling to him??? Anyone else completely flabergasted by this?
Anyway, I don’t know too much about Levada as an archbishop; I was too young to know about the workings of the diocese when he was in Portland. But I remember I did meet him once, when he ordained my uncle.

In Christ,
Rand


#7

[quote=ByzCath]What is there to say?

This was a legal pleading.

If people have trouble understanding the difference between civil legal pleadings and Church Teachings then I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first.

[/quote]

It’s called integrity. You don’t allow your lawyer to take positions in your behalf in court that are in direct contradiction to your professed teachings. It’s analogous to an archdiocese with a seminarian who is accused of injuring a fetus of taking the position that they can’t be held liable because the fetus isn’t a person. Joe


#8

It’s called integrity. You don’t allow your lawyer to take positions in your behalf in court that are in direct contradiction to your professed teachings. It’s analogous to an archdiocese with a seminarian who is accused of injuring a fetus of taking the position that they can’t be held liable because the fetus isn’t a person.

It’s not like that at all. Sex without “birth control” can indeed produce babies. The woman engaged willingly in sex without “birth control”, and is therefore responsible for her actions along with the priest. The Church and lawyers are in no way saying she should have used “birth control”, they’re saying she shouldn’t have had sex. The fact that she didn’t use “birth control” indicates willingness on her part to have a child, whereas if she HAD used “birth control”, she would be indicating her lack of will to have a child.

That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.

Remember, the whole reason that the Church is against the use of “birth control” is precisely because it indicates a lack of will to have a child even though that’s the natural result of sexual intercourse. The Church lawyers were simply saying she knew the consequences, and embraced them, bottom line.


#9

[quote=Ghosty]It’s not like that at all. Sex without “birth control” can indeed produce babies. The woman engaged willingly in sex without “birth control”, and is therefore responsible for her actions along with the priest. The Church and lawyers are in no way saying she should have used “birth control”, they’re saying she shouldn’t have had sex. The fact that she didn’t use “birth control” indicates willingness on her part to have a child, whereas if she HAD used “birth control”, she would be indicating her lack of will to have a child.

That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.

Remember, the whole reason that the Church is against the use of “birth control” is precisely because it indicates a lack of will to have a child even though that’s the natural result of sexual intercourse. The Church lawyers were simply saying she knew the consequences, and embraced them, bottom line.
[/quote]

Did they say the same about the man who impregnated her? And what does the willingness have to do with who supports the child? Apparently they were both willing to have the child, so both should pay support. You don’t just ask for support if the baby was a “mistake”. You ask for support because that is what it is the parent’s duty to give the life they bring into the world, planned or unplanned.

cheddar


#10

[quote=cheddarsox]Did they say the same about the man who impregnated her? And what does the willingness have to do with who supports the child? Apparently they were both willing to have the child, so both should pay support. You don’t just ask for support if the baby was a “mistake”. You ask for support because that is what it is the parent’s duty to give the life they bring into the world, planned or unplanned.

cheddar
[/quote]

Moot point as the man was not the one sueing the Archdiocese, it was the woman.


#11

[quote=cheddarsox]You ask for support because that is what it is the parent’s duty to give the life they bring into the world, planned or unplanned.

cheddar
[/quote]

I agree with cheddarsox that it is the responsibility of the parents to support their children. I don’t think that you will find many religions teaching that it is OK for a father to reject his child.


#12

[quote=stanley123]I agree with cheddarsox that it is the responsibility of the parents to support their children. I don’t think that you will find many religions teaching that it is OK for a father to reject his child.
[/quote]

That is true but that is not the thrust of this thread.


#13

Cheddarsox and Stanley123: That’s not even remotely the point of the thread, which is about Levada supporting or not supporting birth control.

I intentionally didn’t raise the fact that the man, via his Order, already financially supports this child more than he is legally obligated to. I didn’t bring it up because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Let’s try to stay on topic and keep our facts straight.


closed #14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.