The truth needs to be spread.
The truth needs to be spread.
The title is of bad taste and the article utilizes the notion of prophethood to its own ends.
Saint Therese of Ávila said we shouldn’t wish or ask for the gift of prophecy. And the Gospels remind of the danger that comes with the gift. The author of the article is reckless and not prudent.
I completely disagree.
Depends what these guy calls being a Prophet -
Each of us - is called to be one ?
That’s all we need
Paul in 1st Corinthians 12 - says things that hint of people and prophecy -
But to build up the church - at its infancy stage.
I’d never ever speak something - saying “ thus says the Lord “
I do not believe the word “prophet” is the correct word choice as used in this article. Just telling someone what the Church believes is not all that is needed to make it doctrinal. I can teach, share, remind or use other words before I would use prophet. The OT prophets did more than just speak to a rebellious people. @edwest211 What would you want the Humanae Vitae prophets to do other than proclaim this doctrine?
This came out 50 years ago. I have yet to hear a sermon that even touched on it (52 Sundays x 50 =2,600 + holy days…). Other than forums like this, it’s not discussed. It has become so politicized that the only articles you find are written by extremists on one side or the other.
So it seems to me that the Church itself needs a better PR dept. to explain it. Only a small (20%?) minority of Catholics follow it. In any other business, that would be considered an abject failure.
Fortunately, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The prophetic words of Humanae Vitae must be kept alive.
so, if anyone is interested: Google “Contraception - Why Not?”.
It is available on CD (and may be available in other formats; I have not looked recently). It is a talk given by Dr. Janet Smith to priests that is absolutely wonderful, if one desires to support HV.
Janet Smith isn’t the best source:
Alarmist articles will not cover the truth. The heretics rose in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Thank you @Ann_Stanton for your post.
The term “prophet” or “prophecy” is much to special to be thrown around light-heartedly. If anything I felt a need to warn against it, at least some future reader might be cautioned.
I also dislike this tendency of some Catholics that sign their articles with “PhD” at the end and then without due reverence start commenting on aspects of the faith which are delicate (as if an academic degree gave them the authority) - and in the case of prophecy even potentially dangerous. There has been a tendency in some catholic texts (even by popes) to say “we are all prophets” by that requires a special author with special authority within special context (in that sense it is freeing). Else, it is turning prophecy from something very special into something trivial. (And we have seen plenty of false prophets and misguided people of all kinds throwing the term around and abusing the notion.)
Have you listened to her talk?
Hey @edwest211 I’m actually one of those catholics that goes around integrating “Humanae Vitae” into what I say, and people love what I tell them !!!
I just didn’t like the wording in the article (for some notion of what “prophecy” can mean). And both the author of the article and the editor of NCR would be well advised to rethinking light-hearted misuse of certain terms.
I say I’m giving a “catechesis” for grown ups. Or that what I’m saying is church doctrine. Or that, in a way, I’m announcing the “good news”, or confessing my self for Jesus. I don’t say I’m a prophet or a preacher.
The author also neglects (and now looking at content beyond the terms) that the “state of life” you’ll find people in and the state of their faith are very delicate and personal subjects. Those are not trivial and require both time and patience to be talked about. I’ll say that the hardest and most subtle aspects of doing that kind of “proclaiming doctrine” and “confessing Jesus” are way beyond what the article touches on, and one might risk doing more harm than good, and making enmities along the way.
No, I haven’t listened to that specific talk so that one may be solid.
It is more solid than Mr. Conte, and that is as far as I wish to go on the matter of his article.
For someone who has a bachelors in philosophy and in theology, he is undeniably loquacious in his opinions. I find anyone who with a bachelors goes around calling out people like Dr Edward Peters and Dr. Janet Smith in the manner he does to be… lets politely say circumspect. Anyone can have an opinion; when it varies significantly from people widely acknowledged by the Church to be trustworthy, then it is at a minimum suspect. You might find other people to read.
Another way of saying that is that his opinion concerning the two (Peters and Smith) and $3.00 will likely get you somewhere on the local transit.
Popularity is overrated in my opinion.
I wasn’t speaking about popularity.
Honesty is a lot closer to the heart of it.
There are two competing interpretations of Humanae Vitae.
A. Contraception is intrinsically evil regardless of marital state, as maintained by: Fr. Richard Hogan at EWTN, E. Christian Brugger, Christopher O. Tollefsen and others.
B. Contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage, as maintained by: Janet Smith, Dr. Ed Peters, Jimmy Akin, and others.
The Catholic Answers article on the question takes position A:
As Tollefsen says: “contraceptive acts are intrinsically wrong, and not merely always wrong within the marital context,”
I guess you believe it
I saw these online today, with interest. It has been long claimed by dissenters that Pope Paul VI did not seek or else ignored the advice of bishops, theologians and the laity (the “mind of the faithful”) when crafting and promulgating Humanae Vitae. This book, using previously unreleased Vatican archives, attempts to refute this claim. The old video footage of Pope Paul VI is pretty cool too. He spoke English rather well.