Last week, NCR(eporter) published an editorial on the sexuality statements that came out of the USCCB meeting. The editorial’s use of the term "breeding" prompted remarks here and there, since "breeding" and "breeder" are, in this culture, terms of derision used about people who dare to procreate, often used by certain elements of gay culture, in particular.  And not a term, dare we say, consistent with the profound valuation of fertility and children we find in, you know…Scripture.

At Mirror of Justice, Robert Araujo , SJ looks at the editorial:

But there are other elements of this editorial that also require more precision and greater clarity, and these get to the heart of what is likely the motivation for the editorial. When all is said and done, the authors of this editorial disagree with the teachings of the Church as taught by the bishops. Several times within their editorial, the authors refer to “science” and “human experience.” I, for one, would like to know what is the “science” upon which they rely to substantiate their disagreement with the bishops. Their assertion about and reliance on “science” stands in need of clarification.

But in the meantime, I will offer a thought on the allegation about “human experience.” “Human experience” and powerful political lobbying may lead to the decriminalization of certain actions in specified contexts. For example, abortion and adultery and other extra-marital sexual activity were once crimes; but now, in some instances at least, they are not. That does not mean that they are no longer sins. That is a matter for God, not “science” and not “human experience”, to decide. I think the editors who wrote this editorial could have been more clear on this point. Finally, I should comment on the editorial’s remark about the lives of the “faithful.” Each of us who considers one’s self as a member of the faithful is a sinner. But, as sinners, we have the ongoing ability to seek God’s forgiveness and to amend our lives and to sin no more, as the Church teaches us. This, too, is human experience, but it seems to be the type of human experience that does not merit comment in this editorial.

Greg Popcak with another response:

Both editorials criticize the Bishops for not listening to the lived experience of Catholics. I would like to resurrect a point we have discussed here before on the HMS Blog.

Specifically, even if only 5% of Catholics actually subscribe to Catholic teaching on Natural Family Planning (and there are some polls that dispute this), that amounts to about 3.5 million Catholics in the US alone.

If we were to view this segment of the faithful as its own religious denomination, it would be the 8th largest denomination in the country. It would rank higher than the PCUSA, and the ECUSA as well as Missouri Synod Lutherans, Assemblies of God, Greek Orthodox, and many others (see breakdown below from the 2004 NCC Yearbook–). Actually, considering the precipitous drop in numbers from some of the demoninations on the list since 2004, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ranking of Catholics who are supportive of the church’s teaching on sexual morality was even higher.

The simple fact is that the NCReporter and Commonweal editorials do not consider that the Bishops may very well have consulted plenty of married Catholics who do, in fact, live out the teachings on married love quite happily. I actually know several couples with whom they spoke.