Cardinal Meisner Is Taking The Wrong Pills.

Quick, run! The Cardinal is after you!

Quick, run! The Cardinal is after you!

As so often, I have difficulties in talking about the latest antics of a Cardinal without showing a lot of, say, Italian temperament. It isn’t good for my lever, either, so I tend to pass on more than some of the horrible news I hear coming from that corner.

This time, though, I must go back on the latest comments of Cardinal Meisner, because the way some Catholic news outlets tried to defend the indefensible exposes the utter confusion reigning in these disgraceful times.

It has been said, then, that never has the Cardinal said that the use of the “morning after pill” is justified; not on any circumstance. The poor Cardinal was merely badly advised, in that he was told the morning after pill can be used to prevent a pregnancy; which turned out to be, would you believe it, wrong.

Let us reflect on a couple of issues:

1. Apparently there are Cardinals going around the world who pretend not to know the difference between contraception and abortion. They seem to believe contraception is something that can happen after intercourse, as in: I had sex yesterday, let me contracept today! The idea that the intercourse has taken place several hours before the use of the pill and sperm has a limited life, after which it’s either pregnancy or nothing, never touched him. He seems to think many hours after the fact there’s still a spermatozoon slowly travelling toward the egg (on a British train, I imagine), but in case of rape the Cardinal can put himself between the traveller and his destination and say: “stop, you wicked rapist’s spermatozoon: you’ll only reach your egg and do your wicked work over my dead red hat! Don’t you even think of doing this! Bad, bad spermatozoon, don’t you know the girl was raped? “. It would be fun, if words would not fail at explaining how tragically incompetent all this is.

2. The Cardinal is a typical V II product. He will do whatever he can, absolutely everything, to bend himself forward for the aborting and contracepting masses. So when he receives a report saying “dear Cardinal, it’s still no abortion until we call it so” he does not react saying “stop smoking whatever it is you are killing your brain cells with”, but on the contrary even wants to believe it. If he received a medical report saying pregnancy begins only ten weeks after intercourse he would, methinks, believe that too. The simple truth is that in his desire to appease the dissenting, but Kirchensteuer-paying Catholic public the Cardinal has simply decided to forget the most elementary common sense; or else he is on cocaine, which I wouldn’t struggle to believe if he has received a medical report saying cocaine is good against arthritis. 

3. Dulcis in fundo, a point already touched by me in the other post but which (the point, not my post) does not seem to have been much noticed by the press: a Cardinal publicly stating that he favours contraception in certain cases. Unless I am gravely deficient in my Catholic instruction on the matter, this is a huge blunder.

As far as I know, the Church does not condone contraception, full stop. Not in this case, not in the other, not in that third one. Never. It might have tolerated the use of condoms in brothels, as it tolerated the existence of brothels; but she certainly never said there are cases in which condoms should be used more than she said there are cases where the use of the services of a brothel is justified, courtesy of the Cardinal after he received the newest medical report.

The Cardinal allows himself to disagree: confused as his ideas about conception and contraception are, it is clear he had to realise if what he wanted to achieve was not outright abortion, it was most certainly – absurd as the thinking is – contraception. Let us examine the consequences among our oh so well-instructed Catholics in just a few years’ time….

“Care for a quick rape tonight, darling? I really am in the mood….”. “If you really must, dear. Remember in that case you can contracept, though…”.

Other variations are possible:

“Father, I really think I should start taking the pill now; I am going out with that nice guy who is always so correct and polite, but you never know when he may start to rape me”.

If it sounds so ridiculous, it is because the Cardinal’s thinking is. He should have thought: “Achtung! This here is clearly contraception at the very least! What does the Church says about contraception, again? Remind me, secretary, because my seminary was rather liberal…”.

He didn’t, and he made an ass of himself in front of the Catholic world.

Outside of Germany, at least, as I start to think the little stunt might have procured him the one or other friend over there. 

Mundabor

About these ads

Posted on February 8, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Mundabor,
    lately I had a brief discussion on this very issue with a relative of mine. She is a protestant Christian, but no regular churchgoer, and certainly not very religious. (Although she actually believes in God, which is somewhat remarkable for a modern German protestant… ;)) Her views on sexual morality are moderately conservative, that is, more traditional than Merkel and Cameron, but far away from traditional Christian teaching. In her opinion, Meisner was basically right in that he clearly said in his original statement that abortion was unacceptable, but contraception perfectly admissible at least in cases of rape. She knows that the Church opposes contraception on principle and was very confused about Meisner’s statement both because of him failing to oppose contraception and because of his strange medical theories.

    Having had many discussions with me about morality and theology over the last few years, she knows Catholic teaching better than most Catholics today. In her eyes, the Catholic Church is solely oriented towards profits and power and willing to abandon ethical and theological truths if it’s good for business. It is, for her, a corporation in a most negative sense of the word. I have been arguing with her about this for many months, whenever the opportunity arose, in order to make her see the Church in a different, supernatural light. I tried to make her see that underneath all the worldliness of the modernists, there is also the supernatural truth and beauty of the Bride of Christ. (In short, I’m trying to assist in her conversion… but I suppose no modern self-respecting emancipated Catholic should say this anymore… ;)) It is very difficult to do so, even without the constant interference of supposedly “very conservative” bishops like Meisner.

    How to make a non-Catholic understand the absolute Truth of her teaching if the Church seems to veil herself in error and worldliness? How should my relative see the Truth if the Princes of the Church continue to obscure it ever more? These Princes bear a heavy responsibility not only for the souls of the sheep in their dioceses or even for all Catholics, but also for every single soul that might convert, but doesn’t because that soul is unable to see the light through all the cowardly modernist “relevant” smokescreens. Here you have a Cardinal who certainly believes in God and seems for all intents and purposes honestly Catholic and even “conservative” or “orthodox”. And then even he falls into error and ambiguity on critical matters of morality.

    All those people out there who might be persuadable, who might be converted, if the circumstances were right, will draw their own conclusions. Getting them to draw the right ones will get harder and harder, if even supposedly orthodox Catholics abandon essential moral teachings.

    Of course, there is in fact no reason to disbelieve the Faith because of bad modernist bishops and their immoralities, ambiguities, errors and at times even heresies. But try to get this point across to unbelievers or non-Catholics who are interested but not yet convinced. It is nearly impossible. They will not understand it, because the only thing they see is the corruption of the Church. Her splendor is well hidden underneath and only seen by those who already believe.

    To conclude, the Meisners of the world can be even worse than someone like, for example, Lehmann or Zollitsch, because no even moderately interested and moderately intelligent seeker could fail to perceive the errors of Lehmann. Lehmann errs but does not deceive seekers such as my relative. But someone like Meisner is seemingly orthodox, and the seeker would not expect a man of his conservative Catholic reputation to fall into blatant error.

    • I have the same problem you have, with the people I love most.

      I make an analogy with the Fatherland, something every Italian understands more than today’s Germans.

      My allegiance to the Fatherland is total irrespective of how bad the people may be who represent her. And if this is true for the fatherland, how should this not be true concerning the Church, which is so much more important than the Fatherland?

      The problem is that many people forgive to the Fatherland what they do nto forgive to the Church, because they think the Church must be perfect, or it is a fraud.

      Your friend might still see the light, though… she is already better instructed than Cardinal Meisner.. (not difficult, I admit).

      M

  2. CatholicEnglishman

    ‘The idea that the intercourse has taken place several hours before the use of the pill and sperm has a limited life, after which it’s either pregnancy or nothing, never touched him.’

    What on earth is His Grace thinking? How utterly ridiculous. Maybe he should consult with the Church instead of these specialists.

    ‘(on a British train, I imagine)’

    Oh Mundabor, you’re too generous, one’s experience of British trains meant one had to take a bus since they could not move these things! Twice! Then there’s waiting for the bus!

    God Bless.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,983 other followers

%d bloggers like this: