I think that anyone who follows my Blog will
know that I have frequently expressed a great deal of frustration at the fact
that our only South African Catholic newspaper, The Southern Cross, has
repeatedly failed to provide any coverage regarding the HHS Mandate in the US.
This despite the fact that I have repeatedly made an issue about the newspapers
silence on this important subject and that I also appealed to the editor to
publish an article on the matter.
Concerned that I was being unreasonable in my
expectation of The Southern Cross, I wanted to determine if other newspapers, which
are not based in the US, had also chosen to ignore this issue of the HHS
mandate, as The Southern Cross had. So, over the last few days, I conducted
Google searches for Catholic news media around the world, in every possible country.
These included, amongst others, New Zealand, Australia, Philippines, the UK, Nigeria,
Kenya and many more. Each time that I came across one, and there were many, I
conducted a quick search to determine if they had any articles regarding the
HHS mandate. Without fail, every single one that I searched contained an
article about the HHS mandate in the US.
So its seems that Catholic news around the
world, regardless of not being based in the US, shares my sentiment that this
issue is significant enough that, though it may not directly affect their
Catholic readers at this time, it requires reporting. Who would have expected
anything less? Surely, it is to be expected that, when the religious freedom of
Catholics is being challenged in one part of the world, Catholics from around
the rest of the world will naturally rally in support?
I was told, by the editor of The Southern Cross,
that the reason for not publishing an article, was because the story of the HHS
mandate was evolving too quickly and that anything The Southern Cross may
choose to publish, would almost certainly be old news by the time the newspaper
goes to print. Possible, but personally, I don’t buy this as a credible
explanation. I believe that there is sufficient material regarding this HHS
mandate, such as the reasons why Catholics are so outraged by it and what its
implications are for Catholics, which has remained true and relevant for at
least two months already, and therefore makes it possible for an article that
would not be dated by the time the newspaper goes to print.
Yesterday however, while I was re-reading the
editorial from last weeks copy of The Southern Cross titled, “The Catholic Conscience”, for another
post on my Blog, it dawned on me that there may be another reason for not
publishing anything about the HHS mandate staring me right in the face. In the
editorial, Simmermacher very briefly, and I mean very briefly, touches on the
fact that US Catholics had raised an objection to the HHS mandate. He then concludes
his editorial stating that: “Catholics
are right to object to it, but when we do, we must also respect the freedom of
conscience of those who don’t accept what our conscience dictates.”[1]
I believe that this closing line of the
editorial may contain the real answer to my question. Is this last line perhaps
Simmermacher’s way of saying: There are Catholics who don’t consider this HHS
mandate, which forces Catholics to distribute contraception, objectionable and
we should respect their position, including the right of these Catholics not to
have to publish an article in the newspaper, contrary to their conscience.
I am of course only speculating. However, I have
on a number of previous occasions observed that the continued silence of The
Southern Cross, on the subject of the HHS mandate, does tend to naturally lead
one to the belief that their silence is reflective of the fact that this
newspaper does not object to the HHS mandate. Add this silence together with
the above-mentioned statement by the editor, and it most certainly affirms for
me that my speculations may indeed be correct.
Anyway, I don’t doubt that the answer from the
editor is going to remain unchanged. I will almost certainly have to be
satisfied with his explanation of a too rapidly evolving story. As for showing
solidarity with US Catholics, I guess I must be satisfied that I at least did
so on my Blog.
In closing, I think it would be remiss of me not
to make one further comment regarding Simmermacher’s statement that: “Catholics are right to object to it, but
when we do, we must also respect the freedom of conscience of those who don’t
accept what our conscience dictates.”
Naturally, we must respect everyone’s freedom of
conscience. However, true charity also demands of us that, where another
Catholic holds a clearly erroneous belief, we must engage with them to correct
such error. We cannot simply ignore the matter or dismiss it as their right to
choose. That is not true charity. True charity requires that we present the
truth to our fellow Catholics and not be silent, lest they continue in error.
In this instance, we know that any Catholic who
believes that contraception is a licit means of birth control, is wrong,
because we know that a Catholic’s conscience must at all times be subject to
the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, given the Church’s
clear teaching on contraception, as contained in Humanae Vitae, all Catholics
are required to accept the teaching that contraception is not a licit means of
birth control.
“The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the
elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths
of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”[2]
If you would like to read more on this,
including why it is that Humanae Vitae is to be considered an Infallible
document of the Magisterium, please see my post titled, Contraception & Humanae Vitae – Document of the Infallible Magisterium.
No comments:
Post a Comment