"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" - HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."- Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. - - Mark Shea
Dr. Janet Smith is generally seen as one of the great orthodox voices defending the Church’s traditional teaching on contraception. She also is on the record supporting specific uses of contraception, as she does in this article:
On the oft-cited, oft-discussed instance of Congo nuns using contraception to protect themselves against rape, Dr. Smith comes down firmly on the side of the nuns.
I can think of other instances where the use of contraception may be justified. (Notice I say may. I am not a moral theologian and would attempt to wrangled into a dispute with one.) For instance, it’s not always just the two persons involved in the act who are morally involved in a contraceptive act. What about doctors, or parents/guardians? They may have to make decisions on behalf of minors in their care, or give advice/consent on such decisions? Are there cases in which an adult may strongly disapprove of a child’s actions, but in which for very particular reasons (i.e. issues involving mental illness, addiction, potential harm to the child conceived) in which that person would be justified in consenting to another’s use of contraception? In that case, a person would not be consenting to the non-marital act, which would of course be sinful.
If there’s an issue with Humanae Vitae, it’s not that it affirmed that contraception is wrong. Humane Vitae does something very specific: affirms the Church’s traditional teaching that contraceptive use of the marital act is gravely sinful. I have not read it in some time, but to my remembrance, Humanae Vitae is not focused on potential issues surrounding contraception outside of the marital act.
In some ways, this is a bit silly – like someone reading, say, Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment and complaining that it doesn’t contain any in-depth analysis of 19th century Russian criminal jurisprudence. If person finds fault with what the document is not, then one is likely reading it wrong.
Yesterday I received The Columbia magazine and skimmed through it this morning before work. The July 2018 issue is solely on Humanae Vitae. I plan to read it cover to cover this weekend. There are good articles by Helen Alvare and Elizabeth Kirk as well as a historical timeline of court cases throughout the United States and Canada. There’s also some good points from couples who quit contraception and became more open to life.
It is worth the read. I am one Catholic revert who didn’t embrace the pro life movement until about 18 years ago. Some of these articles may be able to be found at http://www.kofc.org, the Knights of Columbus website. Catholic men need to uphold the Sanctity of Life.
Dr. Evan Lenow is a prof at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. worth. He was recently a guest on my radio show The Bird’s Eye View. He defends and teaches HV as a course at SWBTS! For those who would like an e-copy of the show (I believe that Fr. Z already rec’d one) they can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. It is a joy to see this dynamic at work!
dbf223- I would usually agree with Janet Smith, but in the case of the nuns, I think she is wrong. The pill does not work merely by preventing ovulation, as breakthrough ovulation is not uncommon for women on the pill. It has a secondary mechanism which makes the uterine lining hostile to a fertilized ovum. If the pill merely prevented ovulation, I could agree with her point, but since it can also prevent a baby who is already developing from implanting in the womb, I cannot see how it would be permissible for the Pope to give permission for this, if he indeed did. Perhaps this secondary mechanism was not known at the time.