Sixty years ago, on June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court in its Griswold v. Connecticut decision ruled against a state ban on contraception. This established the infamous “right to privacy” that was later used to support Roe v. Wade. Though the latter has since been overturned, the culture has by and large accepted contraception since its proliferation in the 1960s.
In turn, broad swaths of people have also accepted the various lifestyles implicated in that same great separation of sex and procreation. In short: Most Americans have capitulated—in spirit, if not to the letter—to the sexual revolution. That includes most Christians, and indeed most Catholics, who tend to feel far more at home with the culture’s attitudes on sex than those of the Word of God (Mk 10:11; 1 Cor 6:9; etc.).
Against that backdrop, the push from some Catholic quarters to “develop” the sexual doctrine of the Church—the lone institution still stubbornly opposing all of it—takes on a curious quality. Why, when so much of the world has embraced the revolution—when it would be so easy to leave or ignore the Church—do progressives desperately try to change the Church, to make it into something it’s not, and never can be? Why is that this quest—for all the accusations of the Church being “obsessed” with sex—rushes headlong with such intensity into so many nooks and crannies of the Church’s life? Why does it look and feel for all the world like relentless psychological and spiritual warfare?
The typical warmed-over ecclesial and social explanations—that progressives are fighting for the ideals of love, diversity, equality, etc.—are inadequate. They may shed light on this or that aspect, but they don’t reach the deeper personal and spiritual dimensions governing this movement. By contrast, if we grant the Church’s vision of sexuality, an answer with greater explanatory power emerges. And it has to do with a theme that pervades the whole Bible—namely, the psychology of sin.
Of course, we read all about wickedness in the Bible—what it consists of, why it’s wrong to choose it, how it causes us to stumble and perish, etc. But we also read about the wicked—how they think, how they act. The wicked are often described as being tortured inwardly: they “flee when no one pursues,” and their “consciences are seared with a hot iron” (Prov 28:1; 1 Tim 4:2); they find themselves in “deep darkness,” “caught in the toils of their sin,” “snared in the work of their own hands” (Prov 4:19, 5:22; Psa 9:16).
Since no one wants to live in this state—and since to truly escape it would mean repenting and leaving habitual sin behind—they engage in strategies of evasion and self-vindication. Some of these, of course, have to do with God: The wicked convince themselves that God either “does not see,” or sees but “will not call us to account,” boasting of the desires of their hearts (Psa 94;7, 10:13, 3). Failing that, they run from him: “Leave us alone! We do not desire to know your ways” (Job 21:14).
But there are more subtle strategies having to do with our relations with each other. In the first place, the wicked attack the righteous, who anger them and cause them to “gnash their teeth” (Psa 112:10, 37:12): “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins. . . . He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us” (Wis 2:12, 14–15).
They also deceive the impressionable, setting up a “deadly ambush” of words (Prov 12:5) to pull others down into their sorry state: “Wicked people and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived” (2 Tim 3:13).
Lastly, they celebrate and cheer on their fellow sinners: “Those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them” (Rom 1:32).
While it could never be proven empirically, it’s safe to assume—based on polls, headlines, and the general drift of the culture—that the average denizen of the West today is, in some way, complicit in the sexual revolution. In the hidden chambers of the bedroom and the conscience, Christians, too, are busy trying to make peace with their little piece of the revolution’s pie. And if the Church is right that these behaviors are not morally good or morally neutral but morally wicked, and that they, in turn, make us wicked, then we should expect to see these same strategies coming to the fore socially.
And isn’t this exactly what we see? Don’t we see a prideful manipulation of God and flight from his presence? Don’t we see a burning rage at the righteous, the compulsive urge to manipulate the wandering, the vocal advocacy for other sinners who share in our lusts or reflect them in their own? All of these strategies flow together with particular intensity where the Church’s Magisterium is concerned: To have the revolution rubber-stamped by the Catholic Church—that two-thousand-year-old institution that conceives of itself as the authority of God, the communion of saints, the evangelizer of culture, the judge of sinners—would this not be the ultimate balm to seared consciences?
War, Pope Francis preached, begins in the heart before it begins in the world. And behind the war for the “development” of sexual doctrine is a great war of our hearts in conflict with themselves. So many Catholics—new creations, yes, but also creatures of the environing culture—are caught up in sinful and self-destructive habits of sexuality, violent delights with violent ends that are utterly at odds with the truth Christ offers the world. And so many Church leaders have twisted themselves into knots to make room for these habits and to call them by some other name.
But in response to sin’s seething and maneuvering, the Church can only ever offer—always in love and with mercy—the first message Christ himself had to offer: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Mt 4:17).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
And with the last brick troweled in this self-imposed prison…it becomes too late.
The final horror in discovering that ‘freedom’ and ‘license’ are diametrically opposed.
”War, Pope Francis preached, begins in the heart before it begins in the world.”
Francis uttered a few words of conventional Catholic wisdom from time to time, while simultaneously avoiding any honest understanding of what he was saying. Francis was so consumed by his narcissistic need to prove his superiority to all popes who preceded him, he could not hold serious thoughts of how collective evil metastasizes, so he sprinkled endless sentiments on a human race of prideful sinners receptive to a simplistic world view that would enable them to exonerate themselves while identifying and projecting those, who are easy to disassociate as different from one’s self, as the real source of all the evil in the world.
Ironic for the author to cite Francis, who did voice a downplaying of sin more than any pope in history, and who demonstrated venom towards those who really understood that all sin is personal and not a set of impersonal structures requiring the social engineering of elite intellectuals, including tyrants, to set humanity on a new path of “walking together” towards manmade utopia. The futility of grand schemes of perfecting humanity cause the growing cultural resentments on a large scale that are the real triggers of unjust wars.
All the evil in the world has sin as the one and only cause.
Edward :Pope Francis is dead let’s look ahead and move on.
Our memory has yet to be healed.
Unless you were trying to avoid paying attention, the moral relativism he extolled and validated, along with his denials of immutable truth, were merely expressions of what disjointed and smallminded Catholics have adopted into their own thought processes as rationalizations for sins without remorse for more than a hundred years. And the resulting undermining of Catholic witness throughout the world has exacerbated human tragedies in numbers known only to God.
There are many wrong ways of dealing with an evil done. One may wallow in anger, sadness, and pain. One may try to pretend that it never happened, or had little effect. One may try to whitewash it, or to exaggerate it, or to substitute in some other smaller or graver evil that hurts less (due to not being real). One may try to bury it, or to bring it up even when it has no relevance.
There is one right way, and that is to forgive, and to accept the suffering it has brought and will bring. But forgiveness and acceptance, like repentance, require an honest assessment of the evil done and the resulting damage.
The Lord has given the church a man to follow in Pope Leo. Catholics and all Christians can celebrate the goodness of God and His provision for the church.
Thank you for this forthright article, which would be more complete if a bit longer. And, if it drew more directly from not only Humanae Vitae (HV), but also Veritatis Splendor (VS), and the Theology of the Body (TB).
Three points:
FIRST, in the first instance, the precise issue of moral theology is whether the unitive and procreative aspects of the spousal and sexual act can be divorced from one another. HV recalls the conscience to such inviolable unity, as Becklo reminds us.
SECOND, but, then, VS further affirms moral absolutes in contrast with the fallacies of the Fundamental Option, “proportionalism” and “consequentialism.” Namely, whether some morally contradictory acts can be overlooked when averaged into a larger picture, or not. Not only a “psychology of sin,” but a veneer of mathematics. And, whether it is morally licit to do evil that good might come of it. Not so (Romans 3:8). Then, TB presents the prohibitive moral theology of HV truly as truly a positive affirmation of the bodily dimension of the human person open to “the other” in unobstructed communion, ultimately as a reflection of the Trinity—the “language of the body.” Technocracy is not God…
THIRD, to miss this reality is also to fail to see the obvious and slippery slope from contraception, to fetal homicide, to redefinition of the “family,” to Manicheaen gender theory and transgenderism, and to social and cultural disintegration. And, even to the letterhead fallacy of Fiducia Supplicans which seems to just bless this big picture and sweep on by as if nothing has happened. No backstory about the beginnings of locked-in homosexual activity.
In 1948 the opposition to the opening-wedge 1930 Lambeth Conference said it this way:
“It is, to say the least, suspicious that the age in which contraception has won its way is not one which has been conspicuously successful in managing its sexual life. Is it possible that, by claiming the right to manipulate his physical processes in this manner, man may, without knowing it, be stepping over the boundary between the world of Christian marriage and what one might call the world of Aphrodite, the world of sterile eroticism?” (Cited in Cardinal Wright, “Reflections on the Third Anniversary of a Controverted Encyclical,” St. Louis: Central Bureau Press, 1971).
QUESTION: What does it mean, really, to be an embodied soul and a temple of the Holy Spirit? And, what might it possibly mean when a post-synodal Study Group (#9) sets about this summer to sweepingly develop “theological criteria and synodal methodologies [?] for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal [?], pastoral [?], and ethical [?] issues”?
Just askin’…
A good question. Why do they stay? We can simply repeat the old cliche, they want to have their cake and eat it too. But doesn’t that speak to the underlying rationale as Becklo argues.
Yet there’s a distinction. Many who sin and stay, rationalize and promote their rationale are the bad seed, the cockles planted by Satan during the night. Then they’re the majority who sin and feel helpless, who struggle for answers they cannot fathom locked into their habitual sin.
These are the ones faithful clergy are obliged to work with, teach [particularly regarding the fallacy of habitual sin and mitigation as if continuing to sin absolves the sin], admonish, lay down our lives for.
The Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and a serious sin. No, that is not correct. The Church has an official position on this, but it is not taught. Many surveys have shown that 90+ percent of Catholics couples of child bearing age are practicing or have practiced artificial contraception. Knowing this one might imagine that priests might at least occasionally mention this in a homily. Has anyone heard this? I haven’t.
Explain what you are referring to here: “No, that is not correct. The Church has an official position on this, but it is not taught”. And perhaps I’ll be able to respond.
Apparently I take it you mean it’s presumed a doctrine although it’s not taught. Then that’s true. That’s quite and sadly correct.
Priests are fearful they will upset their parishioners as well as their pastors, pastors their bishops. This is the tragic cowardice rife among priests to tell it like it is on virtually all the moral issues.
The idea is to keep em happy, that we’re all saved. Reason why the pews are now emptied. We had to have a pope who would teach doctrine truthfully and convincingly. Instead of producing fiery apostles we settled for flight attendants.
Bishops are the chief teachers, and that flows down to the parish Priests. I thought that I was clear that this is not taught by our priests. A once a year item in the parish bulletin mentioning a natural family planning session being held in a parish 10 miles away hardly constitutes teaching. Given that I read with interest your comments all of the time I am somewhat surprised at your question.
I would say that this topic is the third rail of moral teaching, and those with the duty of teaching the faith, whether in our schools or the Church, do not want to touch it.
Perhaps my initial inability to follow your point is a matter of syntax: “The Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and a serious sin. No, that is not correct”.
“Humanae Vitae was and is a prophetic document from a prophetic pope who challenged the entire world and continues to challenge us today. We must pick up the prophetic baton and continue to herald the prophetic message. It represents the only hope for our gravely disjointed age.”
~Tim Staples, Catholic Answers
Another dynamic why priests omit mention of contraception is the commonly held belief that it’s a matter of conscience. This was the response of many theologians post Humanae Vitae.
While Paul VI affirms contraceptive use is seriously sinful, few bishops firmly and consistently back that doctrine. A key event was Wash DC Archbishop Patrick O’Boyle’s firm opposition to contraceptive use and the rebellion of several of his priests. He took strong action that followed by a nationwide disapproval of O’Boyle’s stand by Catholic clergy.
Paul VI, concerned with growing opposition fearing schism, reversed O’Boyle’s actions against his dissident priests. That’s the unfortunate reality that has influenced adherence to Church doctrine since.
Thank you Father Morello for your responses.
Remember the “Truce of 1968?” This was a sort of don’t ask, don’t tell thing. Pope Paul never issued another Encyclical. Perhaps he was spooked by the reaction to HV?
William. We all know when we exclude life from the conjugal act we’ve intervened in God’s nature as the author of life. Yes, I recall the silence. And the warning of Paul VI of the consequences for society and world. And those consequences leading to myriad sexual perversions continue to ruin us.
I always admire your commentary as well Father. But it is a bit confusing to read: “Another dynamic why priests omit mention of contraception is the commonly held belief that it’s a matter of conscience.”
Commonly held “belief” or commonly contrived rationalization? I know you know better father, but too many do not.
Conscience functioning independent of understood moral precepts is supposed to be applied as a last resort in ultra rare situations that obscure moral clarity, yet immediate prudential action is called for. This cannot rationally apply to a practice where virtually every adult on the face of the earth has heard of what the Church fundamentally preaches on the matter for more than half a century. An individual conscience does not have to wait around in confusion to recognize that their desires contradict a moral precept of the Church and so do priests who know full well how their flocks are ignoring this precept but care as little as lay Catholics do not care to learn the meaning of a beautiful truth.
Abusing conscience makes the word into a euphemism for dishonesty towards ethics, and I cannot comprehend how any priest, let alone theologian, who hasn’t abandoned his sanity, would not recognize this for what it is unless they welcome the same systematic deceit. There is always sin involved in denying sin.
Yes Edward. A commonly held belief here pertains to a false conscience. We can convince ourselves of the good of an evil even if it requires subversion of our interior awareness of the evil [act]. It’s a matter of the will, since evil is in the will. Evil is not a thing. Rather it’s a willed privation to a due end.
I’ve heard homilies where contraception was talked about. But not as often as it should be.
The Church actually teaches that contraception is wrong (not simply “artificial contraception”–NFP is not contraception).
Nevertheless, in my 30 years of being a member of the Church, I had only heard reference to contraception being wrong twice: once at a Triduum/Rosary Mass week-end given by a Legion of Christ priest back in the early 2000s I think it was, and then again at an NFP conferences (where reference to Church teaching would be expected, and completely “on topic”).
I’ve attended both Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite parishes over the years. Neither one have discussed the issue.
Neither once have even really discussed the topic of marriage in a homily either, except to reference that divorces can be “handled” with the annulment process.
I was recently at a non-Catholic “worship band” church and the teaching was on marriage, and honestly, it was remarkably Catholic sounding.
Thank you.
“God is love.” Love is not sin. God died for our sins. All are welcome to repent.
Calling a sin “love” is a lie. “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies..”
Christ said: “Pray then like this:
Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts,
As we also have forgiven our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.”
Dear Father. I pray the Lord’s Prayer every night. Since I took concern with one statement, I have changed the text to eliminate “lead us not into temptation.” How could this passage apply to our Supreme Saviour?
Please advise if I misinterpreted our holy prayer.
God bless.
Here’s a good explanation of why the statement “Lead us not into temptation” is both sound and should not be changed.
Thank you, Carl. Because I say the Lord’s Prayer frequently, I had this vernacular “concern” as I grew older. Then I read about Pope Francis’ ruling.
Pope Francis reportedly approved changes to the wording of the Lord’s Prayer, also known as the Our Father.
Instead of saying, “Lead us not into temptation,” Catholics will say, “Do not let us fall into temptation,” The Guardian and Fox News reported.
The pope said he thought the English translation of the prayer was not correct.
Lead us not into temptation includes everyone under God. The true meaning according to the demand placed by Christ, “Who does the will of my Father is brother and sister to Me”, etc.
Do not let us – is only, God, which is contrary to Faith.
We do NOT take our vernacular from the mass media and the Pope was at fault in this too; and concerning mass media Pope Francis was out of sorts in more ways than just the Our Father.
In fact Catholic media reported the change as “Do not abandon us in temptation” with advertised apologues “proving” that this reflects accompaniment. Which does not make it right either. Or, as if we could and are supposed to find the right alignment of ideas.
Morgan,
Recall Matthew 4:1″ “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” It was the Holy Spirit leading Jesus into temptation. Jesus would never have followed an evil spirit.
God the Father allowed Jesus to be tempted, and as His child, God the Father allows us to be tempted also. His providential care for us is without limit, even if and when we suffer trials or temptations. These experiences should lead us to call upon God for assistance which He will not fail to give.
At Romans 5:2-5, St. Paul says: “…we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”
The pope was misinformed or misled in his tinkering with the words of Our Lord. I recommend that link Carl gave about translation and theological analysis.
Mr. Baker, Pope Francis, RIP, was a puzzlement to me but do you think it’s seemly or charitable to say he had “narcissistic” needs?
Perhaps CWR readers have super powers to read other’s hearts & minds but I don’t.
All sin shares a source & we each bear injuries to our human nature from the Original kind.
mrscracker: thank you.
You are welcome Mr. Connor but it’s something we each should consider in the comments. Me included.
It is not in any way unmeasured to characterize a man, who as the principal guardian of the Deposit of Faith, sought to undermine the very concept in frivolous venomously insulting language towards those who sought to actually defend it.
Calling Francis a narcissist is rhe appropriate diagnosis given the ample evidence he provided during the unfortunate yeas of his papcy. Sometimes, if the shoe fits, one has to wear it.
mrscracker: A characterization of narcissism in bending over backwards in charity towards a pope who never tired, often in vulgar language, to insult received Catholic truth as “museum pieces for the mentally ill.”
And, despite my numerous faults, I’ve never presumed to judge the soul of another human being and their intentions and culpability. Judging behavior is another matter entirely, and it is humanly impossible to not judge behavior, just as you judged me guilty of judging.
On the other hand, I would, from your screen name, judge you as probably being a very generous person, who probable bakes cookies for all the children in your life.
Mr. Baker I’m not judging your heart. I can’t read that anymore than I could read Pope Francis’s.
I’m just asking if you believe those words about him to be charitable?
Pope Francis is in God’s hands now and perhaps we should let him rest in peace and move on. And pray for him.
Sadly, my children are all grown up now but yes, I did a great deal of baking in the past. 🙂
I never judged the heart of Francis nor anyone else for one moment in my entire life. Again, I judged his behavior. And do you really believe that his blatant trivialization and assault on objective Catholic moral precepts had no effect on undermining and damaging the moral resolve within the billions of moral decisions made by people all around the world, Catholic and non-Catholic, who came to interpret Catholic witness as capricious, and therefore meaningless, as any ideology created by man? Do the increased exterminations of inconvenient life that indisputably resulted from such distorted perceptions of Catholic witness not concern you? Do you really think the damage he did ended with his life?
I think we should agree to disagree in charity. I apologize for any offense caused by my question. I know we agree on many important things. God bless!🙏
Boy THAT was a long comment…
Well said Matthew, thank you. I am convicted and encouraged by your words, and whether or not all her members are saints, I love the Church more for them. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beklo, for this thoughtful analysis of the psychology of sin. I have long thought that the guilty conscience problem is one of the biggest obstacles to evangelization that we face. People will do just about anything to avoid facing up to their own sins and the consequences thereof. That is, until the mess in their lives becomes unavoidable and they face it in desperation. If only we would face it sooner!
In any case, for some years now, we at The Ruth Institute have been cataloguing the harms of the Sexual Revolution and trying to give voice to people who figured it out and repented. Our most recent installment is our series of interviews called “Leaving Pride Behind.” The people who once embraced an LGBT identity but no longer do are among the most invisible and most vilified people in society, as Beklo’s quote from Wisdom illustrates. “He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us” (Wis 2:12, 14–15). https://youtu.be/_g1VTqHfIEk?si=Abh5c3bfXFXEtRoT
“Why does it look and feel for all the world like relentless psychological and spiritual warfare?”
It IS psychological and spiritual warfare.
God’s and the Church’s teachings present the abiding bulwark to the relentlessly tenacious (though stupid) Satan and his minions. They know the war has already been won, but they still will wreak as much damage as possible before the eschatological end.
Are you suggesting that Griswold be overturned? I doubt that will happen.
In a perfect world Griswold might be overturned, but in this broken world we might at least hope Catholics would pay some attention to Church teaching on this matter.
Re Griswold: In 1965, perhaps people could be forgiven for thinking widespread unlimited access to contraception would be beneficial. But it was wishful thinking. Today, it is inexcusable to ignore the reality of how much harm contraception has done to society.
Griswold will be overturned. The only question is how much suffering must be endured to we choose to follow God’s laws. There are at least for examples in Scripture of God destroying people, places, and or things because of deliberate fruitlessness. We have farrrr exceeded any of the conditions behind those four instances.
I find Matthew Becklo’s article on the psychology of sin inciteful and informative. However, there is more to the broader concept of sin. No single component of our humanity exists in a vacuum. What affects one aggregate part ultimately affects the others, though the effects manifest in different ways. We can drop a pebble in one part of a pool of water, but the ripples eventually impact every portion of the water. One of the upper powers of the rational spiritual soul is free will.
Referring to the Peripatetic axiom, Aquinas writes: “Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses” (Aquinas, De veritate, q. 2, a. 3, arg. 19). Thus, Satan knows that in order trick our intellect into freely choosing an action, he must first trick our fallen intellect via our human biological senses.
In my writings, I have repeatedly stated that the Bible is one of the most advanced books on biology ever written. It is not written in textbook form, but in the languages of applied sciences and phenomenology. Satan consistently laces his poisonous darts with honey. Tricks us into thinking we are doing good when, in fact, the poison is killing us. The biological equivalents of honey are called hormones. FEEL-good hormones help trick our fallen intellect into believing bad is good. The evildoers are rewarded with a shot of hormones to reward their sinful behavior. Thus, for example, people feel good about driving a woman to get an abortion because hormones help them feel that it is a good deed. They think to themselves, What a good person I am.
Hormones most pertinent to Becklo’s article are dopamine, oxytocin, and endorphins. Through Satan’s deceptions, the cranial brain causes our endocrine gland to produce the above hormones. Consequently, doing evil feels good because hormones make us feel good about doing it. This biological fact is how Hollywood has seduced so many people into believing evil is good, including sinful, intentionally sterile sex. The entertainment industry is an advertising agency peddling false/chemical/imitation compassion and/or love. The overwhelming majority of our young people are fully unequipped to distinguish between true love and compassion versus their counterfeit (hormone-induced) versions.
Incidentally, it has been discovered that the human heart also produces its own hormones. It has been designated as an endocrine gland [ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3987289/ ]. Furthermore, the vagus nerve sends much information from the heart to the brain than vice-versa.
Hi mrscracker,
You and Mr. Baker are both right. I see some of Francis’s acts correlating to narcissistic personality behavior styles. Many psychology texts delineate certain traits or behaviors as typical of narcissistic “bullying”. Some are listed below. In brackets are some PF behaviors which seem to exemplify the tactic:
1) Triangulation: Using a third person to support their opinion or position. [E.g., Invoking the Holy Spirit…]
2) Gaslighting: Manipulating facts or truth. Others then question or doubt their beliefs or perceptions. [We could use MANY examples. One is from the pope’s published meditation of 6/23/14: “…the Pope advised us to defend others and avoid judging them.” Matthew 7:1-5…”presents Jesus who ‘seeks to convince us not to judge’: a commandment that ‘he repeats many times’. In fact, ‘judging others leads us to hypocrisy’. And Jesus defines hypocrites as those who act as judges. Because, the Pope explained, ‘a person who judges gets it wrong, becomes confused and is defeated’.”]
3. Hoovering: The narcissist will attempt to reconnect or keep you in his toxic circle. [E.g., Bishops and laity should join in synodal discussions.]
4. Silent/exclusion treatment: Purposely ignoring, isolating, or excluding others from meaningful activities. [E.g., Traditionalists. Bishops who questioned or opposed PF’s program–Strickland, Zen, etc. PF not answering Dubia, not addressing church financial or abuse concerns.]
5. Scapegoating: Placing blame on one group or person as a scapegoat. [E.g., Backwardists, Traditionalists, TLM-goers.]
6. Passive aggression: Indirect blame-shifting, sabotage, sarcasm. [E.g., treatment of Cardinal Burke after he refused the Covid vaccine and after he presented the Dubia on Amoris Laetitia. TLM fits here too.]
I’m sure you and Mr. Baker are right far more often than I am. I don’t know much about psychology and have no training in that. I just think as brothers and sisters in Christ we might let the late pope rest in peace.
mrscracker,
I think you are more often right than many of the comments here, and you are more charitable 99+% of the time. I also admire that you tell the common sense truth in concise, clear, and succinct sentences.
You are right about letting the man of Pope Francis rest in peace. I also think it is okay to review his policies and the lasting or lingering consequences of those for the Church. I am still processing that past while grateful that it is no longer present in reality.
Blessings to you.❤ And thank you for your generously kind and thoughtful posts. Always.
Thank you meiron. That was very kind. I wish comment boxes were a better way to communicate. It’s an ongoing learning experience for me and I’m trying to learn from my mistakes.
God bless your day!🙏
My comments were never directed to a passing characterization of style or personal psychology.
There is no “charity” at all towards anyone at all by ignoring all the victims of the sins Francis trivialized.
Victims of sin matter. Not any man’s ego.
Victims are the ones who merit charity. And this victimization does not end when an extremely influential voice passes to his final judgement. Not complicated.
Meiron, thanks for the analysis. Perhaps one like it should be done on the political living rather than the deceased religious.
Go ahead!
Poor you if you’re turning in your grave already and you’re not dead yet by far.
Griswold may not be overturned soon but I do see a rethinking of Humanae Vitae in surprising places.
In what why do you see it being changed?
this was a very good article. maybe later you could write a second part to this article, by analyzing the psychology of crime. thank you.
Possible supplement to meiron, above, July 8, 2025 at 1:05 pm –
Time greater than space – “buying time” meaninglessly and co-ordinating wrong directions
Unity prevails over conflict – false piety/pietism, travails in fantasies/guilt tripping
Whole more important than part – petty and/or pre-pubescent psychology-connecting, false fear
Realities more important than ideas – diversionary dichotomies, arbitrary censorships