I've worked in science and technology almost all of my adult life (I had a flurry of varied and interesting jobs in my teens and twenties). History has always been something of a hobby for me (which is nice, because it gives me both the History Channel and the Discovery Channel to fall back on when I can't sleep), but I did not start to study Church history in any real earnest until I got older.
I started because I thought it might help me grow in my faith. On some occasions, it feels like it has. But I probably have kept it up for the simple reason that I find it exceedingly interesting.
A couple of days ago, I got involved in an online discussion about the history of Christmas. I basically cited the conventional Church history, which you would find in a textbook or the Catholic Encyclopedia. Basically, Christians did not celebrate Christmas as a feast until about 200 AD (ex. doesn't appear in Tertullian's list of feasts). From then until the mid forth century, Christians generally celebrated either the Epiphany in January, or specifically Christ's birth later in the spring (some celebrated both). Starting in the fourth century, some Christians began using December 25th, seemingly usurping pagan solstice rites, which had been largely combined in 279, and centered on the traditional birth date of Mithras.
I didn't expect this to be particularly controversial, but some heads seemed to explode. The suggestion that Christmas has not been celebrated on Dec. 25th since the beginning is a direct attack on faith - written historical records be damned!
I did try to remain kind and charitable (rather I succeeded is another matter). But one of the 'offenses' I was called to task for was noting that evergreens and wreaths are a long standing Pagan practice. I seemed to be challenged to 'prove' my presumably heretical claim. I started to give a long history of archaeological sites with seeming ties to solstice worship, going back to about 3000 B.C., then I erased that long, tedious monologue and noted simply that the Prophet Jeremiah condemned the pagan practice in about 600 BC (Jeremiah 10:2-4) and the Latin apologist Tertullian condemned it again in the third century ("On Idolatry" XV).
I had hoped (and continue to hope) that my studies would help lead me to a deeper understanding and strengthened faith. But I do sometimes wonder if the endeavor has principally lead to my being even more annoying; something I would have thought to be impossible (my wife can attest that I have long held master status in the art).
Merry Christmas and may the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
"How much more...."?
I have been giving a lot of thought about the latest revelations that the US's reversal on it's 'no torture' policy (dating back to George Washington) came from the top of government. There have been good posts on Street Prophets and Mark Shea's blog, so I wasn't sure what I could really add.
Several years ago, I finally started to feel the torture issue in a very visceral way. I was trying to listen to a homily, when I suddenly connected this particular incident to something in the second reading from St. Paul. Something about the reference to evil withering in the light (an analogy he used in both Romans and Galatians). I literally felt sick to my stomach and unworthy for communion.
I do not expect all Catholics to feel so strongly. After all, I took time to start to feel the matter as emotional and personal. But I am continuously baffled by Catholics who are dismissive or even supportive of the practice. I am put in mind of something that Pope Stephen V wrote late in the 9th century:
I've actually seen this cited a few times as proof of the Church's long standing position on abortion. But the subject was actually infanticide. The Pope appears to be saying, 'look we hold that it is murder to kill a child before it is born, of course you cannot tolerate your flock burying unwanted or unhealthy newborns alive!' It is hardly a unique topic. Infanticide was a major problem among the gentile faithful for the first millennium. Thankfully, that practice has become rare and isolated among Christians. But I think the reasoning is still relevant today.
Roughly 50% of all fertilized ovum are never even born, but we hold destroying them to be gravely evil. Of course you cannot torture and murder fully formed and ensouled human beings!
Several years ago, I finally started to feel the torture issue in a very visceral way. I was trying to listen to a homily, when I suddenly connected this particular incident to something in the second reading from St. Paul. Something about the reference to evil withering in the light (an analogy he used in both Romans and Galatians). I literally felt sick to my stomach and unworthy for communion.
I do not expect all Catholics to feel so strongly. After all, I took time to start to feel the matter as emotional and personal. But I am continuously baffled by Catholics who are dismissive or even supportive of the practice. I am put in mind of something that Pope Stephen V wrote late in the 9th century:
"If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a
murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a
child even one day old?" - Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz
I've actually seen this cited a few times as proof of the Church's long standing position on abortion. But the subject was actually infanticide. The Pope appears to be saying, 'look we hold that it is murder to kill a child before it is born, of course you cannot tolerate your flock burying unwanted or unhealthy newborns alive!' It is hardly a unique topic. Infanticide was a major problem among the gentile faithful for the first millennium. Thankfully, that practice has become rare and isolated among Christians. But I think the reasoning is still relevant today.
Roughly 50% of all fertilized ovum are never even born, but we hold destroying them to be gravely evil. Of course you cannot torture and murder fully formed and ensouled human beings!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
We're #1!
Sometimes, coming in first is not something to be proud of.
Hat tip to Matthew Yglesias for posting about this.
Hat tip to Matthew Yglesias for posting about this.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Context...
I've been thinking a lot lately about context and intent. The other morning I heard a report about "The Drivers" in Saudi Arabia. Basically a group of Saudi women drove vehicles until they were arrested as a form of protest. The periodically re-unite and note that the ongoing prohibition on women driving creates fiscal hardship and other problems.
An interesting story in its own right, with plenty of food for thought. For example, Rome has identified "religious freedom" as a non negotiable moral principle in voting, but what about when religious practices start to collide with social justice? It is easy to think of the Saudi situation for woman and driving as very backward and alien, but we have a similar moral conflict ourselves. We have an obligation to uphold and protect the Family, but gay unions do raise some issues of legitimate social justice.
But what really caught my attention was a statement near the end of the report:
In the right context, serious sin became a virtue. This is hardly a novel concept. If I was robbed and then hunted down the thief and killed him, I would be acting immorally, even by Old Testament standards. But if I tried to protect an elderly woman from armed robbery and the thief was accidentally killed in the struggle I would seem to be on sounder moral ground.
It appears that, even with very serious outcomes, our intent matters. In VERITATIS SPLENDOR, Pope John Paul II explains, convincingly, that we cannot, as Catholics, accept morality as a purely relative matter. Some acts are intrinsically evil, because they are never licit. I can accept this, there is no reason, not even my own life or the lives of the people I love most, for, say, genocide. But it it is still very difficult to escape context and intent.
For example, in EVANGELIUM VITAE, the pope makes it clear that direct abortion is always a grave moral disorder. Yet, when Catholics combine this seemingly infallible proclamation with the concepts of VERITATIS SPLENDOR in political discourse, we often end up with some seemingly very incoherent chains of thought.
'You cannot vote for Obama, abortion is intrinsically evil, an absolute!'
'But McCain supports abortion in some cases, so why can you vote for him?'
'That's different, I am trying to limit the harm, which is licit!'
'Yes, in the same Encyclical that the pope declared direct abortion to always be a grave moral disorder, he introduced the concept of "limiting the harm", the direct abortion is intrinsically evil, but abortion voting may or may not be licit depending on one's intent and sincere belief.'
'You're just rationalizing what you want to do! It's INTRINSICALLY EVIL, an ABSOLUTE!'
If you are patient and thick skinned, you can repeat this conversation in circular fashion until someones head explodes. I think that the core problem is that we can convince ourselves that we have good intentions, but our typical political discourse is currently one of divisiveness and demonization. People don't just disagree, They hate America, They hate Our good values...
But the point I am really trying to make is that, even with a moral absolute, it is very hard to eliminate context and intent from the equation. Even if we move from voting about abortion to actually procuring them, or tendency is still towards moral relativism. If you ask a 'pro-life political militant' about ectopic, or tubal pregnancy, the vast majority will state, in absolute terms, that such abortions are licit because of double effect. But that is hardly clear. The USCCB's Directives for Health Care Providers specifically prohibits direct abortion for ectopic pregnancies. And the 1902 decision from the Tribunal of the Holy Office seems to have prohibited indirect abortion, that is, removing the fetus unharmed and letting 'nature take its course', in the same situation.
The double effect argument concerning salpingectomy vs. salpingostomy has always been a bit dubious, and it appears that most modern Catholic Bioethicists have abandoned it. Now if you search the National Catholic Bioethics Center for "ectopic" you will find papers purporting the licit use of Methotrexate (MTX), a chemical abortificant. The argument is that some of these are not pregnancies at all, but interrupted miscarriages, so the fetus is "dead or dying". The distinction would seem important, but the issue of direct euthanasia, another absolute teaching, is not addressed...
The Church has not taken a formal position on these specific applications. But it is worth noting that in countries with Catholic majorities, such applications are generally prohibited by law and the local bishops seem wholly supportive of such laws.
In light of all this, it seems fair to say that the issue is at least morally grey, yet many of the same people who view voting for abortion as unarguably evil (at least if the voting differs from their own) will be quite adamant that abortion itself is absolutely licit in some cases. The difference, of course, is again context and intent. Could the Church really expect me, or someone I love, to risk sterility or even possible death for a pregnancy that cannot possibly reach term?
While I do not purport to have the definitive answer to that question, I would again reiterate that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones that we are willing to stand by in a context that costs us dearly.
An interesting story in its own right, with plenty of food for thought. For example, Rome has identified "religious freedom" as a non negotiable moral principle in voting, but what about when religious practices start to collide with social justice? It is easy to think of the Saudi situation for woman and driving as very backward and alien, but we have a similar moral conflict ourselves. We have an obligation to uphold and protect the Family, but gay unions do raise some issues of legitimate social justice.
But what really caught my attention was a statement near the end of the report:
A handful of women caught driving this year were only briefly detained, according to press reports, and a university student was called a heroine after she drove her badly burned father to the hospital.
In the right context, serious sin became a virtue. This is hardly a novel concept. If I was robbed and then hunted down the thief and killed him, I would be acting immorally, even by Old Testament standards. But if I tried to protect an elderly woman from armed robbery and the thief was accidentally killed in the struggle I would seem to be on sounder moral ground.
It appears that, even with very serious outcomes, our intent matters. In VERITATIS SPLENDOR, Pope John Paul II explains, convincingly, that we cannot, as Catholics, accept morality as a purely relative matter. Some acts are intrinsically evil, because they are never licit. I can accept this, there is no reason, not even my own life or the lives of the people I love most, for, say, genocide. But it it is still very difficult to escape context and intent.
For example, in EVANGELIUM VITAE, the pope makes it clear that direct abortion is always a grave moral disorder. Yet, when Catholics combine this seemingly infallible proclamation with the concepts of VERITATIS SPLENDOR in political discourse, we often end up with some seemingly very incoherent chains of thought.
'You cannot vote for Obama, abortion is intrinsically evil, an absolute!'
'But McCain supports abortion in some cases, so why can you vote for him?'
'That's different, I am trying to limit the harm, which is licit!'
'Yes, in the same Encyclical that the pope declared direct abortion to always be a grave moral disorder, he introduced the concept of "limiting the harm", the direct abortion is intrinsically evil, but abortion voting may or may not be licit depending on one's intent and sincere belief.'
'You're just rationalizing what you want to do! It's INTRINSICALLY EVIL, an ABSOLUTE!'
If you are patient and thick skinned, you can repeat this conversation in circular fashion until someones head explodes. I think that the core problem is that we can convince ourselves that we have good intentions, but our typical political discourse is currently one of divisiveness and demonization. People don't just disagree, They hate America, They hate Our good values...
But the point I am really trying to make is that, even with a moral absolute, it is very hard to eliminate context and intent from the equation. Even if we move from voting about abortion to actually procuring them, or tendency is still towards moral relativism. If you ask a 'pro-life political militant' about ectopic, or tubal pregnancy, the vast majority will state, in absolute terms, that such abortions are licit because of double effect. But that is hardly clear. The USCCB's Directives for Health Care Providers specifically prohibits direct abortion for ectopic pregnancies. And the 1902 decision from the Tribunal of the Holy Office seems to have prohibited indirect abortion, that is, removing the fetus unharmed and letting 'nature take its course', in the same situation.
The double effect argument concerning salpingectomy vs. salpingostomy has always been a bit dubious, and it appears that most modern Catholic Bioethicists have abandoned it. Now if you search the National Catholic Bioethics Center for "ectopic" you will find papers purporting the licit use of Methotrexate (MTX), a chemical abortificant. The argument is that some of these are not pregnancies at all, but interrupted miscarriages, so the fetus is "dead or dying". The distinction would seem important, but the issue of direct euthanasia, another absolute teaching, is not addressed...
The Church has not taken a formal position on these specific applications. But it is worth noting that in countries with Catholic majorities, such applications are generally prohibited by law and the local bishops seem wholly supportive of such laws.
In light of all this, it seems fair to say that the issue is at least morally grey, yet many of the same people who view voting for abortion as unarguably evil (at least if the voting differs from their own) will be quite adamant that abortion itself is absolutely licit in some cases. The difference, of course, is again context and intent. Could the Church really expect me, or someone I love, to risk sterility or even possible death for a pregnancy that cannot possibly reach term?
While I do not purport to have the definitive answer to that question, I would again reiterate that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones that we are willing to stand by in a context that costs us dearly.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
I'm not holding my breath...
I freely admit that George Weigel's writing consistently upsets me. I literally can taste the enamel grinding off my teeth as I clench my jaw and try to force myself to try to hear what he has to say with an open mind. My long standing complaint is that, for all the mountains of writing he has done on Iraq, he has never really discussed his relationship with PNAC, which has a much less ideological interest in Iraq occupation.
Something I have noted before is that my father believed that the only principles we really believe in are the ones we will stand by when they cost us something. Anything else is just a principle of convenience. When I saw that the Senate Armed Forces Committee has released a report on the treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, I recalled this column which Weigel had once written. Interestingly, the archive copy differs a bit from the version that was published in The Tidings (I cut it out and kept it). In the version I first read, Weigel is less ambiguous, if torture is a matter of policy, not deviant behavior, then ius in bello, the rules governing the waging of a just war are broken.
The Catechism covers this succinctly in CCC 2313. We cannot mistreat detainees and the standard given is international law, not our own discretion.
It has been clear for a very long time that torture and indefinite detention have officially entered US policy. This breaks a long standing precedent going back to George Washington, who ordered his troops not to respond to atrocities by the enemy in kind, but to treat all prisoners humanely. Books like The Dark Side, whose title comes from a quote from Vice President (and fellow PNAC participant) Dick Cheney, have done a very good job of tying together all the evidence that has tricked out over the last 5 years - including President Bush's public insistence that he, personally, was involved.
So the Senate report really just confirms what we already knew. Yet, Weigel continues to write about the war in Iraq and the so-called 'war on terror' as if they are unarguably just and historically vindicated. It is not terribly Christian of me, but this makes me wonder if the problem is disassociation from reality, or insincerity when it comes to the theological principles he invokes in his columns.
I suppose the charitable interpretation is that he does not yet find the evidence of torture as official policy compelling, but when a certain threshold is met he will acknowledge the moral implications and alter his position. But like the title says...
Something I have noted before is that my father believed that the only principles we really believe in are the ones we will stand by when they cost us something. Anything else is just a principle of convenience. When I saw that the Senate Armed Forces Committee has released a report on the treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, I recalled this column which Weigel had once written. Interestingly, the archive copy differs a bit from the version that was published in The Tidings (I cut it out and kept it). In the version I first read, Weigel is less ambiguous, if torture is a matter of policy, not deviant behavior, then ius in bello, the rules governing the waging of a just war are broken.
The Catechism covers this succinctly in CCC 2313. We cannot mistreat detainees and the standard given is international law, not our own discretion.
It has been clear for a very long time that torture and indefinite detention have officially entered US policy. This breaks a long standing precedent going back to George Washington, who ordered his troops not to respond to atrocities by the enemy in kind, but to treat all prisoners humanely. Books like The Dark Side, whose title comes from a quote from Vice President (and fellow PNAC participant) Dick Cheney, have done a very good job of tying together all the evidence that has tricked out over the last 5 years - including President Bush's public insistence that he, personally, was involved.
So the Senate report really just confirms what we already knew. Yet, Weigel continues to write about the war in Iraq and the so-called 'war on terror' as if they are unarguably just and historically vindicated. It is not terribly Christian of me, but this makes me wonder if the problem is disassociation from reality, or insincerity when it comes to the theological principles he invokes in his columns.
I suppose the charitable interpretation is that he does not yet find the evidence of torture as official policy compelling, but when a certain threshold is met he will acknowledge the moral implications and alter his position. But like the title says...
"But even if he will not..."
A few days ago I made reference to Daniel 3, focusing on the beginning of verse 18. My point was that faith was not conditional on a good outcome. In the story, the three faithful men are saved, but the passage makes it clear that the men would not be shaken from their faith even when the situation looked dire.
I have been thinking about a lot of things lately, but I was incredibly moved by the interview with Don Yun Yoon's interview on TV the other day. I really can't imagine losing my family, and I have serious doubts about rather I would have such Christian instincts in the immediate aftermath of such a tragedy. In Daniel, the three men are saved from a fiery death, Yoon's family were not saved. There was no divine intervention. But even though 'He did not', Yoon's faith and charity can be seen even in his obvious grief.
In addition to sad, this makes the situation very humbling for me. I went searching to see if there was something Yoon or his friends wanted those of us expressing sympathy to do; donate to a charity, a fund to help with the material loss, that sort of thing. I did find this, and would encourage people to help if they can. But I was actually surprised at how little discussion Google turned up. I thought that this would be a topic for all the blogs and forums, but if that is occurring, I don't see it.
The same thing happened with the illegal immigrant who stopped and helped the boy whose mother had been killed in an accident in the desert, even though it meant his own arrest and deportation. If a high profile Catholic or politician said, in passing, "you know, if I were a woman and I was raped and beaten by Satan, I probably would at least consider an abortion..." there would be countless posts with endless pages of comments connected to them. Most from red faced people beating their own heads hard enough to make their ears bleed proclaiming that anyone not in lock step agreement with them was an obvious agent of evil...
But when we hear actually stories about people being good Christians under adversity, we do not seem very interested. My first thought was that perhaps the problem is that the people involved are not white. After all, plenty of people applauded the "fine Christian example" of Sarah Palin's unwed pregnant daughter. A more depressing thought is that, perhaps, our faith has become just another stick that we use to whack each other.
If you collapse "the least among" us to fertilized zygotes and sexual morality to not being gay, you get all the benefits of moral indignation and self righteousness, without any of the inconvenience of self realization or introspection. If the point is no longer humble service in the spirit of Christ's teachings, then stories like Yoon's are not so interesting. After all, his message is forgiveness, gratitude, and unity. Most our religious dialog is focused on establishing who is 'good' and who is 'bad' (with the people doing the speaking inevitably in the 'good' group themselves).
Another sobering possibility is that, like racism, we might be missing another of Jesus' often repeated lessons. We tend to think of the Pharisees as obviously bad people, but Jesus' audience would have considered them ultra religious war heroes. They were overt nationalists and xenophobes. So, if we are disinterested because of race, we are ignoring all Jesus' pointed references to the strangers among us, or his repeated use of despised and mistrusted foreigners as examples of righteousness in parables. But Jesus also aggressively challenged another widely held belief, that success and misfortune are closely tied to grace. A horrible disability was not an unfortunate twist of fate, but much deserved punishment from God. Spiritual and material wealth were widely seen as connected...
As far as I can tell, these ideas are very much alive and well today. You are poor because you are lazy. The idea that someone's poverty might be influenced by how the wealthy utilize their power is just 'bleeding heart excuses from people who like wasting other people's money'. I see something similar with my son. Many people still assume that his behaviors are evidence of poor parenting, not his severe neurological disability.
Similar thoughts seem to surround our concept of 'heroic'. In victory, the definition of 'hero' is pretty broad. But in failure, the word 'hero' is only used in a few narrow circumstances. Perhaps that is why we are so indifferent to all the devastating head injuries that are the symbol for the war in Iraq. A 'hero' is someone with steely eyes whose dignified bearing is marred by only the slightest of limps. A man in a wheel chair, who no longer recognizes his own children and who is fed baby food with a plastic spoon...
We are a clearly a results oriented society. Paris Hilton was born spectacularly wealthy, but making yourself more famous by glorifying selfishness and stupidity or performing sex acts with a cheeseburger on a car, that is something we can look up to... But our faith is about how we act, regardless of the outcome. It is probably best exemplified in situations like Yoon's, when we are facing tragedy or failure.
In that light, perhaps it is not so surprising that we are not interested. Yoon's spiritual victory over horrible personal tragedy just isn't the sort of 'winning' we are used to celebrating.
Update: Beauty and Depravity (which I found just yesterday searching for the Church/Autism story) asks the same question.
I have been thinking about a lot of things lately, but I was incredibly moved by the interview with Don Yun Yoon's interview on TV the other day. I really can't imagine losing my family, and I have serious doubts about rather I would have such Christian instincts in the immediate aftermath of such a tragedy. In Daniel, the three men are saved from a fiery death, Yoon's family were not saved. There was no divine intervention. But even though 'He did not', Yoon's faith and charity can be seen even in his obvious grief.
In addition to sad, this makes the situation very humbling for me. I went searching to see if there was something Yoon or his friends wanted those of us expressing sympathy to do; donate to a charity, a fund to help with the material loss, that sort of thing. I did find this, and would encourage people to help if they can. But I was actually surprised at how little discussion Google turned up. I thought that this would be a topic for all the blogs and forums, but if that is occurring, I don't see it.
The same thing happened with the illegal immigrant who stopped and helped the boy whose mother had been killed in an accident in the desert, even though it meant his own arrest and deportation. If a high profile Catholic or politician said, in passing, "you know, if I were a woman and I was raped and beaten by Satan, I probably would at least consider an abortion..." there would be countless posts with endless pages of comments connected to them. Most from red faced people beating their own heads hard enough to make their ears bleed proclaiming that anyone not in lock step agreement with them was an obvious agent of evil...
But when we hear actually stories about people being good Christians under adversity, we do not seem very interested. My first thought was that perhaps the problem is that the people involved are not white. After all, plenty of people applauded the "fine Christian example" of Sarah Palin's unwed pregnant daughter. A more depressing thought is that, perhaps, our faith has become just another stick that we use to whack each other.
If you collapse "the least among" us to fertilized zygotes and sexual morality to not being gay, you get all the benefits of moral indignation and self righteousness, without any of the inconvenience of self realization or introspection. If the point is no longer humble service in the spirit of Christ's teachings, then stories like Yoon's are not so interesting. After all, his message is forgiveness, gratitude, and unity. Most our religious dialog is focused on establishing who is 'good' and who is 'bad' (with the people doing the speaking inevitably in the 'good' group themselves).
Another sobering possibility is that, like racism, we might be missing another of Jesus' often repeated lessons. We tend to think of the Pharisees as obviously bad people, but Jesus' audience would have considered them ultra religious war heroes. They were overt nationalists and xenophobes. So, if we are disinterested because of race, we are ignoring all Jesus' pointed references to the strangers among us, or his repeated use of despised and mistrusted foreigners as examples of righteousness in parables. But Jesus also aggressively challenged another widely held belief, that success and misfortune are closely tied to grace. A horrible disability was not an unfortunate twist of fate, but much deserved punishment from God. Spiritual and material wealth were widely seen as connected...
As far as I can tell, these ideas are very much alive and well today. You are poor because you are lazy. The idea that someone's poverty might be influenced by how the wealthy utilize their power is just 'bleeding heart excuses from people who like wasting other people's money'. I see something similar with my son. Many people still assume that his behaviors are evidence of poor parenting, not his severe neurological disability.
Similar thoughts seem to surround our concept of 'heroic'. In victory, the definition of 'hero' is pretty broad. But in failure, the word 'hero' is only used in a few narrow circumstances. Perhaps that is why we are so indifferent to all the devastating head injuries that are the symbol for the war in Iraq. A 'hero' is someone with steely eyes whose dignified bearing is marred by only the slightest of limps. A man in a wheel chair, who no longer recognizes his own children and who is fed baby food with a plastic spoon...
We are a clearly a results oriented society. Paris Hilton was born spectacularly wealthy, but making yourself more famous by glorifying selfishness and stupidity or performing sex acts with a cheeseburger on a car, that is something we can look up to... But our faith is about how we act, regardless of the outcome. It is probably best exemplified in situations like Yoon's, when we are facing tragedy or failure.
In that light, perhaps it is not so surprising that we are not interested. Yoon's spiritual victory over horrible personal tragedy just isn't the sort of 'winning' we are used to celebrating.
Update: Beauty and Depravity (which I found just yesterday searching for the Church/Autism story) asks the same question.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Thank goodness for odd...
I was actually going to write about this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/autistic-boy-banned-from_n_102953.html
I had a somewhat related experience with my own son this Sunday, though my interaction with the pastor and celebrant have been a lot more positive. It actually opens a bunch of issues that are a bit hard to write about, so I had been putting it off, digesting. Then I found this:
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=343586>1=28102
The first two paragraphs are almost two weird for comment:
I'm not that surprised that a Cardinal would object to a Madonna invasion on the grounds of public morality, but the words "Mass in honor of the late dictator Augusto Pinochet" were already hard enough to get my head around without a bumping and grinding Madonna thrown into the mix. But I guess you can't look at this:
Without thinking of this:
I think it is the boots and hat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/autistic-boy-banned-from_n_102953.html
I had a somewhat related experience with my own son this Sunday, though my interaction with the pastor and celebrant have been a lot more positive. It actually opens a bunch of issues that are a bit hard to write about, so I had been putting it off, digesting. Then I found this:
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=343586>1=28102
The first two paragraphs are almost two weird for comment:
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- Madonna is causing
"crazy enthusiasm" and "impure thoughts" on her first concert visit to Chile, a
prominent retired cardinal complained on Wednesday, as he paused in a tribute to
a late dictator to denounce the pop star.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Jorge Medina criticized the flamboyant singer
during his homily at a Mass in honor of the late dictator Augusto Pinochet, who
oversaw the deaths of some 3,200 dissidents during his 1973-1990 rule.
I'm not that surprised that a Cardinal would object to a Madonna invasion on the grounds of public morality, but the words "Mass in honor of the late dictator Augusto Pinochet" were already hard enough to get my head around without a bumping and grinding Madonna thrown into the mix. But I guess you can't look at this:
Without thinking of this:
I think it is the boots and hat.
Monday, December 8, 2008
How is this a Food or a Drug?
Over the last 8 years I have seen a lot of evidence that the FDA is seriously broken. As an outsider to the process it is hard to know the complete story. But controversies like the furor over BPA seem to give the strong suggestion that science is not in the driver's seat at the agency. And it certainly does not bode well for the agency's effectiveness that the AMA issued a study finding that prescription drug related deaths are on the rise.
The Government Accountability Office found that the agency does not even have clear policies for dealing with health and safety issues that might arise after something is approved. And ex-employees of the agency claim that the agency is as lax with food safety as it is with drugs. None of this speaks to a well oiled and effective Federal entity.
But on the sheer stupid side, this must take the cake. My son is "handicapped", in the very real sense. He could use many things, but an adaptive gun is not one of them. Do not misunderstand, I accept that, in a pluralistic, democratic republic, I have to accept that such things might get made and sold. A sad commentary on the state of our society, but seemingly unavoidable.
But this seems a bit much:
Excuse me? Last year children living in hunger in the US jumped to 700,000. Before the most catastrophic job numbers in decades, about 50,000,000 Americans were living without any health insurance. We have a clear moral obligation to take care of our elderly. But if resources are finite and we have to make compromises, I would vote that children do not go to bed hungry and everyone gets catastrophic health care coverage before we make sure that grandma and grandpa have plenty of handguns and Viagra...
The Government Accountability Office found that the agency does not even have clear policies for dealing with health and safety issues that might arise after something is approved. And ex-employees of the agency claim that the agency is as lax with food safety as it is with drugs. None of this speaks to a well oiled and effective Federal entity.
But on the sheer stupid side, this must take the cake. My son is "handicapped", in the very real sense. He could use many things, but an adaptive gun is not one of them. Do not misunderstand, I accept that, in a pluralistic, democratic republic, I have to accept that such things might get made and sold. A sad commentary on the state of our society, but seemingly unavoidable.
But this seems a bit much:
"Thanks to the gun's designation as a medical device, doctors could eventually write prescriptions for it and then be reimbursed by Medicare..."
Excuse me? Last year children living in hunger in the US jumped to 700,000. Before the most catastrophic job numbers in decades, about 50,000,000 Americans were living without any health insurance. We have a clear moral obligation to take care of our elderly. But if resources are finite and we have to make compromises, I would vote that children do not go to bed hungry and everyone gets catastrophic health care coverage before we make sure that grandma and grandpa have plenty of handguns and Viagra...
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Letter to the Editor...
I wrote the following to our Archdiocese newspaper, The Tidings, in response to the reader comments in the most recent issue. Clearly, many people have not yet adjusted to the realities of the election being over.
To Whom It May Concern:
If the recent reader comments in The Tidings are any indication, tempers have not yet cooled in the aftermath of the recent election. I humbly submit that, as Catholics, we might all benefit from a quick review of two of the instructions in our Catechism. First, CCC 1790:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”
In heated political rhetoric, we are usually aware of our own certainty but often forget that our opponents are typically certain of their positions as well. The Church makes it clear that each of us must act on the moral certainty we feel, but we must also never forget that we, ourselves, may still be in error. This is a little reminiscent of marriage, though 25+ years have taught me that those situations are often best handled by not acting on my certainty and simply acknowledging, up front, that I am in error!
Second, CCC 2478, which begins “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…” It then goes on to quote some wonderful advice from St. Ignatius of Loyola on how we should listen, discuss, and even correct each other only in love and charity.
The most “favorable way” that I can think of to interpret the differences between my voting and some of my fellow Catholics is to recognize that our teaching on life is enormous, and that I, personally, cannot love enough. Consider Pope John Paul II’s clear, simple statement on the “right to life” in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38). It is “every human being” in “every phase of development” and in “every condition”.
Mentally, I can accept this. It is a logical extension of loving my neighbor as myself. Emotionally, it is not so easy. God can, and does, love infinitely but my capacity is seemingly all too limited. When it was my own children still in the womb or my own father facing the end of his life, I felt love akin to what I hold for my own skin. But when it comes to, say, the 4,000 children who die every day for lack of two buckets of clean water, I feel sadness, but not the same burning emotions. Moving farther, to someone like a suicide bomber or a death row inmate, it becomes hard for me to even muster sympathy.
Since I cannot fit the entire teaching in my heart I cannot reasonably expect my fellow Catholics to do so either. As I see it, we each fit in as much as we can, as best we can. With a teaching so broad, and with each of us having unique life experiences, some differences seem inevitable. Instead of viewing these differences as disaster, I am trying to see them as strength. Perhaps the differences help make our collective heart larger. The USCCB makes a similar point in its document on FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP (#29):
“Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”
Each week at Mass, we collectively pray for unity and peace. To show our seriousness we even demonstrate by offering each other a sign of peace. I, for one, am not going to start making that gesture conditional on how the Catholics around me voted. And I sincerely hope that none of them will start putting any such precondition on me!
To Whom It May Concern:
If the recent reader comments in The Tidings are any indication, tempers have not yet cooled in the aftermath of the recent election. I humbly submit that, as Catholics, we might all benefit from a quick review of two of the instructions in our Catechism. First, CCC 1790:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”
In heated political rhetoric, we are usually aware of our own certainty but often forget that our opponents are typically certain of their positions as well. The Church makes it clear that each of us must act on the moral certainty we feel, but we must also never forget that we, ourselves, may still be in error. This is a little reminiscent of marriage, though 25+ years have taught me that those situations are often best handled by not acting on my certainty and simply acknowledging, up front, that I am in error!
Second, CCC 2478, which begins “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…” It then goes on to quote some wonderful advice from St. Ignatius of Loyola on how we should listen, discuss, and even correct each other only in love and charity.
The most “favorable way” that I can think of to interpret the differences between my voting and some of my fellow Catholics is to recognize that our teaching on life is enormous, and that I, personally, cannot love enough. Consider Pope John Paul II’s clear, simple statement on the “right to life” in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38). It is “every human being” in “every phase of development” and in “every condition”.
Mentally, I can accept this. It is a logical extension of loving my neighbor as myself. Emotionally, it is not so easy. God can, and does, love infinitely but my capacity is seemingly all too limited. When it was my own children still in the womb or my own father facing the end of his life, I felt love akin to what I hold for my own skin. But when it comes to, say, the 4,000 children who die every day for lack of two buckets of clean water, I feel sadness, but not the same burning emotions. Moving farther, to someone like a suicide bomber or a death row inmate, it becomes hard for me to even muster sympathy.
Since I cannot fit the entire teaching in my heart I cannot reasonably expect my fellow Catholics to do so either. As I see it, we each fit in as much as we can, as best we can. With a teaching so broad, and with each of us having unique life experiences, some differences seem inevitable. Instead of viewing these differences as disaster, I am trying to see them as strength. Perhaps the differences help make our collective heart larger. The USCCB makes a similar point in its document on FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP (#29):
“Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”
Each week at Mass, we collectively pray for unity and peace. To show our seriousness we even demonstrate by offering each other a sign of peace. I, for one, am not going to start making that gesture conditional on how the Catholics around me voted. And I sincerely hope that none of them will start putting any such precondition on me!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Isn't Faith enough?
I happened to catch this news story today, and glanced at the referenced research. I have no doubt that in a day or so I will be able to find multiple posts declaring that the research is obviously false and an equal number citing it as proof that anti-abortionists are, as a group, moral hypocrites.
The way I see it, we are all moral hypocrites, so the latter isn't really news. That was like the media telling me, all last year, that Britney Spears had done something self destructive and stupid. Telling me, again and again, that Britney Spears is emotionally broken is not news, it is perverse pleasure in one person's suffering. News would be Spears turning her life around, which it appears she now somewhat has.
As far as the research being false, I find that doubtful. Like the WHO's research into secular law's limited impact on abortion (it found that half the abortions in the world each year are illegal) or the Guttmacher Institute's research regarding the seeming ineffectiveness of abstinence only education, the numbers speak pretty clearly for themselves, and the methodologies used appear very sound.
I know that there are personal testimonials, 'I was so depressed, I never forgave myself...' But I have a son with autism, a poorly understood developmental disability. I have lost count of how many heartfelt testimonials I have heard for treatments and interventions which show no value in controlled clinical studies. The problem is that physical and mental health is very complicated, so a statistical universe of one is a terrible foundation for deducing causal relationships.
Heartfelt anecdotes notwithstanding, I've wondered for a long time why so many Catholics become so adamant in rejecting this type of research. I could probably understand if it was only research which, at least on the surface, appears to support the current secular climate on abortion, but I have seen more than one Catholic become so angry that he/she lost the power of speech at the mention that secular research shows a link between abortion and poverty (the majority of procured abortions in the US are for women living in or near poverty, about half of them are also already mothers).
Personally, I find this faith reaffirming. "Gospel" comes from "Good News", as in "bringing the Good News to the poor". The idea that Jesus' call to service and social justice is directly relevant to moral issues in which the Church is very interested in today seems like affirmation, not a threat, to me.
I cannot know what motivates my peers, but it seems to me that it might be a lack of confidence in the practicality of our faith in everyday life. Sure, it sounds great on Sundays, but in the real world there are scary people, so we have to torture... Real progress on abortion can only come through the political process...
I have been reading more of the Old Testament of late, with the 'Apocalyptic style' of many of the Prophets seeming to fit the end of the Church's year and the beginning of Advent. When I started thinking about this subject I recalled something that I had read a few days ago in Daniel 3. Bad King Nebuchadnezzar wants to make the faithful young men worship his wicked golden statue, but even the threat of fiery death does not sway them. They refuse to submit and are rewarded, they are saved. Good triumphs over evil, much like a Gunsmoke episode, except that we have divine intervention instead of the quick draw and bullets...
But in reading the chapter more closely, there seems to be some very important messages in the admittedly melodramatic tale. Consider verse 18, which starts "But even if he will not..." The three men have no doubt that God can save them, but their faith is not dependant on the actual outcome. The practical and pragmatic do not enter into it. No 'we'll tell him what he wants to hear so we can escape to practice the faith and serve God...' Or, 'that statue is the state religion, so we had best capitulate, since we can then at least accomplish some good...'
Surely even young men have enough life experience to know that the typical outcome from fiery encounters is death. Miraculous salvation would be the exception, not the rule. Which leads to the question, where they being faithful, or impractical?
Over our seemingly endless election season I heard more than one Catholic chastised for stating that he/she intended to vote for write-ins because the alternative was to vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion. In fact, this was the subject of my very first post here. The argument is that if one does not join the practical effort, evil will win. But the longer I ponder this, the more the retort resonates with me. If we limit ourselves to choosing between evils, are we not insuring that evil always wins?
I think that the same principle applies here. Morality and practicality do not have to overlap. Oregon is rated very abortion friendly in terms of its laws. But it has been a national leader in reducing its abortion rate over the last 30 years. A lower abortion rate is a good thing, but if the path that led to it is greater promotion and access to contraceptives, it is still an immoral situation in Catholic doctrine. Like the three in Daniel, the end does not justify the means in our faith. It is the means, or the upholding the faith that will count in the end.
When we devote a lot of energy into trying to justify everything in secular terms, particularly dubious secular terms like seemingly invented mental health problems, we obscure that.
The way I see it, we are all moral hypocrites, so the latter isn't really news. That was like the media telling me, all last year, that Britney Spears had done something self destructive and stupid. Telling me, again and again, that Britney Spears is emotionally broken is not news, it is perverse pleasure in one person's suffering. News would be Spears turning her life around, which it appears she now somewhat has.
As far as the research being false, I find that doubtful. Like the WHO's research into secular law's limited impact on abortion (it found that half the abortions in the world each year are illegal) or the Guttmacher Institute's research regarding the seeming ineffectiveness of abstinence only education, the numbers speak pretty clearly for themselves, and the methodologies used appear very sound.
I know that there are personal testimonials, 'I was so depressed, I never forgave myself...' But I have a son with autism, a poorly understood developmental disability. I have lost count of how many heartfelt testimonials I have heard for treatments and interventions which show no value in controlled clinical studies. The problem is that physical and mental health is very complicated, so a statistical universe of one is a terrible foundation for deducing causal relationships.
Heartfelt anecdotes notwithstanding, I've wondered for a long time why so many Catholics become so adamant in rejecting this type of research. I could probably understand if it was only research which, at least on the surface, appears to support the current secular climate on abortion, but I have seen more than one Catholic become so angry that he/she lost the power of speech at the mention that secular research shows a link between abortion and poverty (the majority of procured abortions in the US are for women living in or near poverty, about half of them are also already mothers).
Personally, I find this faith reaffirming. "Gospel" comes from "Good News", as in "bringing the Good News to the poor". The idea that Jesus' call to service and social justice is directly relevant to moral issues in which the Church is very interested in today seems like affirmation, not a threat, to me.
I cannot know what motivates my peers, but it seems to me that it might be a lack of confidence in the practicality of our faith in everyday life. Sure, it sounds great on Sundays, but in the real world there are scary people, so we have to torture... Real progress on abortion can only come through the political process...
I have been reading more of the Old Testament of late, with the 'Apocalyptic style' of many of the Prophets seeming to fit the end of the Church's year and the beginning of Advent. When I started thinking about this subject I recalled something that I had read a few days ago in Daniel 3. Bad King Nebuchadnezzar wants to make the faithful young men worship his wicked golden statue, but even the threat of fiery death does not sway them. They refuse to submit and are rewarded, they are saved. Good triumphs over evil, much like a Gunsmoke episode, except that we have divine intervention instead of the quick draw and bullets...
But in reading the chapter more closely, there seems to be some very important messages in the admittedly melodramatic tale. Consider verse 18, which starts "But even if he will not..." The three men have no doubt that God can save them, but their faith is not dependant on the actual outcome. The practical and pragmatic do not enter into it. No 'we'll tell him what he wants to hear so we can escape to practice the faith and serve God...' Or, 'that statue is the state religion, so we had best capitulate, since we can then at least accomplish some good...'
Surely even young men have enough life experience to know that the typical outcome from fiery encounters is death. Miraculous salvation would be the exception, not the rule. Which leads to the question, where they being faithful, or impractical?
Over our seemingly endless election season I heard more than one Catholic chastised for stating that he/she intended to vote for write-ins because the alternative was to vote for an intrinsically evil position on abortion. In fact, this was the subject of my very first post here. The argument is that if one does not join the practical effort, evil will win. But the longer I ponder this, the more the retort resonates with me. If we limit ourselves to choosing between evils, are we not insuring that evil always wins?
I think that the same principle applies here. Morality and practicality do not have to overlap. Oregon is rated very abortion friendly in terms of its laws. But it has been a national leader in reducing its abortion rate over the last 30 years. A lower abortion rate is a good thing, but if the path that led to it is greater promotion and access to contraceptives, it is still an immoral situation in Catholic doctrine. Like the three in Daniel, the end does not justify the means in our faith. It is the means, or the upholding the faith that will count in the end.
When we devote a lot of energy into trying to justify everything in secular terms, particularly dubious secular terms like seemingly invented mental health problems, we obscure that.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Blogger formatting...
First, thank you to friends who have emailed me to point out that some messages are formatted oddly. I appreciate that anyone is reading this at all.
FWIW, this appears to be an ongoing battle between me and Blogger.com's editing/formatting. I create posts, preview them, post them, then find them all screwed up. I open them for editing, end up mucking with the raw HTML code, and eventually convince myself that the post in question is readable enough.
I know, I am supposed to be highly computer literate. Perhaps my broad swathes of ignorance on the subject of Catholicism is somehow rubbing off...
FWIW, this appears to be an ongoing battle between me and Blogger.com's editing/formatting. I create posts, preview them, post them, then find them all screwed up. I open them for editing, end up mucking with the raw HTML code, and eventually convince myself that the post in question is readable enough.
I know, I am supposed to be highly computer literate. Perhaps my broad swathes of ignorance on the subject of Catholicism is somehow rubbing off...
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
When Faith and Political Blogging collide...
I have mentioned in the past that I enjoy the political blogging of Steve Benen, currently at WashingtonMonthly.com. Although I do not always agree with him, I like his wit and appreciate that he clearly does make an effort to read what his political opposites have to say. Also, although it may seem counter intuitive, his history in working on Church/State separation tends to make him a bit more 'Faith savvy' than most political commentators.
I also follow Stephen Bainbridge's blog. I feel like I have to make an honest attempt to hear different points of view. And, while Bainbridge often sounds like a Fox News transcript, he does occasionally show the coherent reasoning skills one would expect from a law professor. More importantly (or at least more entertaining to me) he is not utterly without self realization. That is, he periodically seems to grasp that his political ideology, which is very Evangelical Protestant in nature, sometimes clashes with his Catholic faith. He can never seem to express these realizations with a generous and humble heart. Inevitably, the language includes the presumption of membership in an unarguably more devout and righteous group. But at least the thoughts are acknowledged an expressed. A perfect example would be this recent post.
"It’s worth remembering from time to time that cafeteria Catholicism is not soly the province of the political left..."
Yes, Luke 18:9-14 does seem to suggest that we should be mindful of our own moral failings. But I think that we have heard the tale so much that we no longer perceive "Pharisee" as Jesus' first audience did. Pope Benedict has pointed out that the same lesson can be found in Luke 15:11-32, which Benedict has suggested we refer to as a parable of two sons, not one. The same lesson seems to appear in its starkest form in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:1-5). In that light, "soly" (sic) is probably not a word I would choose.
Please don't misunderstand, I am just as much a flawed, inconsistent sinner as any. It is just that my failings differ from Bainbridges. I freely acknowledge that I am a 'cafeteria Catholic', but while I see us all as cafeteria Catholic's (hence the words "Lord I am not worthy to receive you..." at every Mass), Bainbridge seems to believe that "cafeteria Catholicism" is something separate from himself, which can identified and admonished.
Bainbridge's musings on faith do not normally get picked up on by other political blogs, especially a more left leaning blog like Benen's. But recently Bainbridge discussed Douglas Kmiec's possible selection as ambassador to the Holy See.
Benen then wrote a piece commenting on the issue, essentially stating that he was baffled by the objections. In response, Bainbridge updated his article with the following comment:
Please don't misunderstand, I am just as much a flawed, inconsistent sinner as any. It is just that my failings differ from Bainbridges. I freely acknowledge that I am a 'cafeteria Catholic', but while I see us all as cafeteria Catholic's (hence the words "Lord I am not worthy to receive you..." at every Mass), Bainbridge seems to believe that "cafeteria Catholicism" is something separate from himself, which can identified and admonished.
Bainbridge's musings on faith do not normally get picked up on by other political blogs, especially a more left leaning blog like Benen's. But recently Bainbridge discussed Douglas Kmiec's possible selection as ambassador to the Holy See.
Benen then wrote a piece commenting on the issue, essentially stating that he was baffled by the objections. In response, Bainbridge updated his article with the following comment:
Did Benen even bother to read--let alone try to understand--the argument? Nowhere did I say that voting for Obama is a deal breaker. Obviously, Obama is going to appoint someone who supported him.There are a lot of problems with this. Perhaps first, and foremost, Benen specifically states that he finds Bainbridge's arguments "quite odd". So the first question seems answered, yes, he read it, no he did not understand it in the sense that he found it to be coherent and compelling. Benen then simply gives his reasons, principally, large Catholic support for Obama (50% of regularly practicing Catholics, 54% of Catholic overall) and Kmiec's long standing as a conservative Catholic who is in public agreement with the Church on high profile issues like abortion.
The question is whether this specific Obama supporter ought to be chosen. The point has been that Kmiec presents a unique combination of facts that I find problematic.
All I can say, is that the Washington Monthly has gone way down hill since Kevin Drum left. Although I rarely agreed with Drum, at least he was willing to have an intellectually honest discussion. benen is just shoddy.
Second, much as the Pharisee needed to look to his own spiritual well being, not the Publican's, when it comes to to being "intellectually honest" and avoiding the "shoddy", Bainbridge's piece leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Bainbridge uses a snippet from Rome's Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Public Life. He is using this to argue that abortion has special status. But if we look at the entire paragraph, and the paragraph that proceeds it, the meaning is quite different.
Presumably, Bainbridge justifies his own vote for a Presidential candidate with an intrinsically evil position on abortion as an application of "limiting the harm", but the proceeding paragraph in the doctrinal note specifically warns about elevating a teaching at the expense of others:
"In this context ["limiting the harm"], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action."
The paragraph that follows, from which Bainbridge takes his snippet, is where the Church gives 9 examples of the sorts of "fundamental contents of faith and morals" we are talking about. Yes, abortion is in that list, but so are things like Peace, societies protection of minors, religious freedom, and a commitment to a socially just economy. We know that this list is "not negotiable" because Pope Benedict specifically says so in Sacramentum Caritatis (#83). The USCCB points out this same connection in its document on Faithful Citizenship.
To bolster his interpretation, Bainbridge next uses a quote from a fragment of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the US bishops which has never been officially released. Even so, there is strong reason to believe that, again, the quote is being used deceptively. Bainbridge's interpretation would require the presumption that Ratzinger was disagreeing with the Doctrinal Note, which not only was also written by Ratzinger, but approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II. The more common interpretation is that, in the section quoted, Ratzinger is referring to the subject at hand, which was a question from the Bishops on rather or not communion could be denied to politicians who supported the war in Iraq or the death penalty. In this context, Ratzinger is not discussing elevating of specific teachings, but the proper application of Canon Law (specifically CIC 915).
Although Bainbridge links to only a fragment of the leaked letter, this interpretation is bolstered by more complete copies. Ratzinger goes on to discuss the distinction of direct support of an intrinsically evil position through voting, and an application of "proportionate reasons" where connection to the evil is remote. The specific case he gives is a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
But ultimately I think the problem rests not with Bainbridge's shoddy research and twisted quotes of Church and unofficial documents, but with something my father once referred to as the "true test". Basically, my father contended that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones we stand by when they cost us something. He was talking about 'free speech' at the time, but it strikes me as a universal concept.
Law professor thinking and self justification make it inevitable that Bainbridge acknowledge the legitimacy of 'proportionate reasons' voting. The USCCB expressly explained the concept, and many individual US bishops have commented on it, including the very conservative Archbishop Burke. Just as important, the concept must exist, or Bainbridge himself would be voting in opposition to the Church on "fundamental and inalienable moral principles", including abortion (McCain's position on abortion is not licit).
But while Bainbridge can bring himself to acknowledge the existence of the principle, he cannot bring himself to accept any application other than his own. Aside from a little twisting of Church teaching, his argument fundamentally boils down to, 'I found these particular circumstances especially compelling in my voting.' This is fine, he can apply proportionate reasons and he must follow the certainty of his own moral conscience - CCC 1790. But he needs to read CCC 1790 in it's entirety. We are to always remember that our moral conscience is fallible. Just because Bainbridge and some other voices in the Church find something overwhelmingly compelling does not mean that they are, in fact, unarguably the most compelling factors for all Catholics.
The USCCB seems to go so far as to recognize this as a strength. We cannot all be involved in every issue important to the faith. But, although we are all answering different individual calls to faith, collectively this means we are more broadly answering Jesus' call to service.
Bainbridge appears to see this differently, there are "serious and loyal" Catholics, like himself, and the rest of us. If you reject that fundamental premise, that there is a subset of unarguably more righteous Catholics to which Bainbridge belongs, his entire argument appears to become moot.
To bolster his interpretation, Bainbridge next uses a quote from a fragment of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the US bishops which has never been officially released. Even so, there is strong reason to believe that, again, the quote is being used deceptively. Bainbridge's interpretation would require the presumption that Ratzinger was disagreeing with the Doctrinal Note, which not only was also written by Ratzinger, but approved for distribution by Pope John Paul II. The more common interpretation is that, in the section quoted, Ratzinger is referring to the subject at hand, which was a question from the Bishops on rather or not communion could be denied to politicians who supported the war in Iraq or the death penalty. In this context, Ratzinger is not discussing elevating of specific teachings, but the proper application of Canon Law (specifically CIC 915).
Although Bainbridge links to only a fragment of the leaked letter, this interpretation is bolstered by more complete copies. Ratzinger goes on to discuss the distinction of direct support of an intrinsically evil position through voting, and an application of "proportionate reasons" where connection to the evil is remote. The specific case he gives is a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
But ultimately I think the problem rests not with Bainbridge's shoddy research and twisted quotes of Church and unofficial documents, but with something my father once referred to as the "true test". Basically, my father contended that the only principles we truly hold dear are the ones we stand by when they cost us something. He was talking about 'free speech' at the time, but it strikes me as a universal concept.
Law professor thinking and self justification make it inevitable that Bainbridge acknowledge the legitimacy of 'proportionate reasons' voting. The USCCB expressly explained the concept, and many individual US bishops have commented on it, including the very conservative Archbishop Burke. Just as important, the concept must exist, or Bainbridge himself would be voting in opposition to the Church on "fundamental and inalienable moral principles", including abortion (McCain's position on abortion is not licit).
But while Bainbridge can bring himself to acknowledge the existence of the principle, he cannot bring himself to accept any application other than his own. Aside from a little twisting of Church teaching, his argument fundamentally boils down to, 'I found these particular circumstances especially compelling in my voting.' This is fine, he can apply proportionate reasons and he must follow the certainty of his own moral conscience - CCC 1790. But he needs to read CCC 1790 in it's entirety. We are to always remember that our moral conscience is fallible. Just because Bainbridge and some other voices in the Church find something overwhelmingly compelling does not mean that they are, in fact, unarguably the most compelling factors for all Catholics.
The USCCB seems to go so far as to recognize this as a strength. We cannot all be involved in every issue important to the faith. But, although we are all answering different individual calls to faith, collectively this means we are more broadly answering Jesus' call to service.
Bainbridge appears to see this differently, there are "serious and loyal" Catholics, like himself, and the rest of us. If you reject that fundamental premise, that there is a subset of unarguably more righteous Catholics to which Bainbridge belongs, his entire argument appears to become moot.
AgingCatholic goes after the Church Lady
I went searching on the Catholic Answers forum for more posts from AgingCatholic, whom I quoted a few weeks ago. Seeing none for some time, I sent him an email to ask if he was OK (I had first contacted him to compliment him on the prior post). Apparently, he has been banned from Catholic Answers. This is not surprising, I have been banned myself and now only 'lurk'. But AgingCatholic did send me a question he posted to Judie Brown on the EWTN forums.
For those who are not familiar, Judie is the founder of http://www.all.org/, and often on the receiving end of some of my most uncharitable thoughts. I always seem to picture her as the Church Lady from SNL, wagging her finger. In this particular instance, I largely agree with AgingCatholic's take. She is utterly dismissive of Sister Welding's obvious compassion for poverty and other life issues. I would note that AgingCatholic's points should cut both ways. That is, we should be attempting to interpret Judie's actions in the most favorable light as well. In addition, I do not believe that Judie is being "dishonest", as AgingCatholic implies. I think that she is more akin to the ants in T.H. White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING. Things are either 'done' (lock step with her) or 'not done' (any deviation). If you are 'not done', you are wrong and evil and receive the standard admonishments and reasoning.
As I have written before, I believe that the problem is that, lacking God's capacity for infinite love, we cannot, as humans, wholly comprehend our Catholic teaching on right to life. It is just too broad. Instead of just focusing on what calls to us personally, we should be striving to hear each other and attempting to grow together in love. I should be attempting to feel the love Sister Welding clearly has for the sick and poor. Likewise I should be attempting to feel more of Judie's apparent passion for the unborn. It is not a matter of picking who is right and who is wrong, but one of recognizing that we are all incomplete and will be a better representation of Jesus' instructions when we come together and support each other as a community of faith.
That said, here is the letter, without editing, as it was sent to me (and published here with permission:
********************************************
Judy,
Although I applaud your pro-life efforts, I must admit that I found this commentary to be downright offensive:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120105.html
It is always a sin to profess to know the heart and mind of others, so this comment would be inappropriate at any time:
"The first and perhaps most obvious problem with this nun's letter is that she is clearly not only pro-abortion but feels fine attributing her views to God, the Author of Life!"
But when you continue:
"To equate the direct murder of a preborn baby with the "lesser of two evils," thus suggesting that some preborn children would be better off dead than to have to be born into poverty, is about as misguided and ill-conceived a notion as I have ever seen in print."
The spectre of blatant dishonesty is raised. Consider the nun's actual statement, which begins:
"Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life..."
Up front, she concedes that abortion is a dire evil, but then continues:
"So is war and violent killing on the street."
This is true, and wholly in keeping with the teaching of the Church. As Pope John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), the right to life is inviolate regardless of our stage of development or physical or spiritual state. Further, it is directly tied to the inalienable rights of the human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council (which the pope quotes).
Where the nun appears to drift from our specific teachings is in the sentence that follows:
"I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative."
You interpret this as comparing life in poverty to no life at all. However, the Catechism instructs us to interpret the words of others in the most favorable light possible (CCC 2478). I do not interpret the statement above to be a comparison of hunger to death, but one of slow, agonizing death to a quick one.
Such a thought would still be theologically incorrect, since we hold every moment of life to be precious, a gift of infinite value from our loving God. But it would be more emotionally understandable. Look closely at the statement, the nun is reporting a direct experience from her service to these children. It is the nature of our species to place more emphasis on individual experience. Those deaths, and the horrible ravages of poverty witnessed first hand, clearly pull directly on her moral conscience, which she is compelled to obey (CCC 1790).
But even if your interpretation is correct and I am wrong, two very serious problems remain. First, your reaction. Look again at CCC 2478, in particular the quote of St. Ignatius of Loyola:
"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
You not only interpreted the words in the most unfavorable light (among other things, your interpretation would require the presumption that the nun is actively attempting to deceive), you call other Catholics to join you in judging her and attempting to extract retribution via her order. Compare this to the path of love and compassion endorsed by a saint.
The second problem with your interpretation is that it presumes that it is inarguable that poverty should be trumped by abortion. But, as Catholics, we are first, and foremost, Christians. Jesus specifically and repeatedly stated that ministering to the poor is the principle criteria on which we will be judged for salvation (ex. Luke 10, Matthew 25, etc.) In fact, the word "Gospel" is derived from "Good News", and in "Good News to the poor".
In CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Pope John Paul II explained that the right to life is the most fundamental of our rights (#38), but he also clearly stated that all the rights must be honored because they come directly from God. So our obligation to the weak is not negotiable, even when we are attempting to limit a grievous evil like abortion. In fact, in a Doctrinal Note on voting, Rome has gone so far as to state that elevating some teachings at the expense of others is "incoherent" and a potential "detriment" to the faith as a whole:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)
Rome explains that the faith is a cohesive and coherent whole. We cannot pick and choose values because they are intertwined. Poverty, in particular, is directly tied to vast numbers of innocent deaths. Thousands of children die each day for want of clean water. Even more die for lack of simple items like mosquito netting or from preventable childhood diseases.
In the US, children living in hunger doubled in 2007, to about 700,000. Since the majority of women who procure abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line, and about half of them are already mothers, it would seem foolish, in either moral or secular terms, to view the issues as wholly separate.
The opinions of individual bishops should be respected, but they are not 'Vicars of the Pope', they are only authentic teachers (teachers speaking with the authority of Christ) when they are in communion with the Holy See. As we can see, Rome, as the Sister, sees "pro-life" as much, much broader than just abortion. Further, the Vicar of Christ has seemingly rejected your concept of elevating a narrow application of pro-life to special status, even at the cost of other teachings.
In fact, in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS Pope Benedict introduces the concept of "Eucharistic Consistency" (#83). The Doctrinal Note is cited, and its broad list of fundamental and inalienable moral principles in #4 are directly referred to as "not negotiable" and tied to fitness for Holy Communion in political life.
This leads to several questions:
Q1. Are you asserting that Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul are/were both incorrect? That is, are you asserting that it is a better application of Church teaching to elevate abortion to special status at the expense of other fundamental moral principles?
Q2. Are you asserting that the Church's understanding of the Gospels is incorrect in that it is wholly correct to rush to judgement and enlist others to join one in casting stones? We are, after all, not just talking about CCC 2478, which the Church ties to the 8th Commandment, but the Beatitudes and Pope John Paul II's explanation of the proper application of CIC 915.
Q3. Are you asserting the Catholic Church's definition of "pro-life" is too broad? Sister Welding invoked specific examples of innocent death, but you label her comments "ludicrous". The Church's official position is that all attacks on human life are illicit and must be considered (see the Doctrinal Note, EVANGELIUM VITAE, CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, and the USCCB's document on Faithful Citizenship). Dismissing some attacks outright would appear to be a direct rejection of this position.
Peace
For those who are not familiar, Judie is the founder of http://www.all.org/, and often on the receiving end of some of my most uncharitable thoughts. I always seem to picture her as the Church Lady from SNL, wagging her finger. In this particular instance, I largely agree with AgingCatholic's take. She is utterly dismissive of Sister Welding's obvious compassion for poverty and other life issues. I would note that AgingCatholic's points should cut both ways. That is, we should be attempting to interpret Judie's actions in the most favorable light as well. In addition, I do not believe that Judie is being "dishonest", as AgingCatholic implies. I think that she is more akin to the ants in T.H. White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING. Things are either 'done' (lock step with her) or 'not done' (any deviation). If you are 'not done', you are wrong and evil and receive the standard admonishments and reasoning.
As I have written before, I believe that the problem is that, lacking God's capacity for infinite love, we cannot, as humans, wholly comprehend our Catholic teaching on right to life. It is just too broad. Instead of just focusing on what calls to us personally, we should be striving to hear each other and attempting to grow together in love. I should be attempting to feel the love Sister Welding clearly has for the sick and poor. Likewise I should be attempting to feel more of Judie's apparent passion for the unborn. It is not a matter of picking who is right and who is wrong, but one of recognizing that we are all incomplete and will be a better representation of Jesus' instructions when we come together and support each other as a community of faith.
That said, here is the letter, without editing, as it was sent to me (and published here with permission:
********************************************
Judy,
Although I applaud your pro-life efforts, I must admit that I found this commentary to be downright offensive:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120105.html
It is always a sin to profess to know the heart and mind of others, so this comment would be inappropriate at any time:
"The first and perhaps most obvious problem with this nun's letter is that she is clearly not only pro-abortion but feels fine attributing her views to God, the Author of Life!"
But when you continue:
"To equate the direct murder of a preborn baby with the "lesser of two evils," thus suggesting that some preborn children would be better off dead than to have to be born into poverty, is about as misguided and ill-conceived a notion as I have ever seen in print."
The spectre of blatant dishonesty is raised. Consider the nun's actual statement, which begins:
"Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life..."
Up front, she concedes that abortion is a dire evil, but then continues:
"So is war and violent killing on the street."
This is true, and wholly in keeping with the teaching of the Church. As Pope John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), the right to life is inviolate regardless of our stage of development or physical or spiritual state. Further, it is directly tied to the inalienable rights of the human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council (which the pope quotes).
Where the nun appears to drift from our specific teachings is in the sentence that follows:
"I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative."
You interpret this as comparing life in poverty to no life at all. However, the Catechism instructs us to interpret the words of others in the most favorable light possible (CCC 2478). I do not interpret the statement above to be a comparison of hunger to death, but one of slow, agonizing death to a quick one.
Such a thought would still be theologically incorrect, since we hold every moment of life to be precious, a gift of infinite value from our loving God. But it would be more emotionally understandable. Look closely at the statement, the nun is reporting a direct experience from her service to these children. It is the nature of our species to place more emphasis on individual experience. Those deaths, and the horrible ravages of poverty witnessed first hand, clearly pull directly on her moral conscience, which she is compelled to obey (CCC 1790).
But even if your interpretation is correct and I am wrong, two very serious problems remain. First, your reaction. Look again at CCC 2478, in particular the quote of St. Ignatius of Loyola:
"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
You not only interpreted the words in the most unfavorable light (among other things, your interpretation would require the presumption that the nun is actively attempting to deceive), you call other Catholics to join you in judging her and attempting to extract retribution via her order. Compare this to the path of love and compassion endorsed by a saint.
The second problem with your interpretation is that it presumes that it is inarguable that poverty should be trumped by abortion. But, as Catholics, we are first, and foremost, Christians. Jesus specifically and repeatedly stated that ministering to the poor is the principle criteria on which we will be judged for salvation (ex. Luke 10, Matthew 25, etc.) In fact, the word "Gospel" is derived from "Good News", and in "Good News to the poor".
In CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Pope John Paul II explained that the right to life is the most fundamental of our rights (#38), but he also clearly stated that all the rights must be honored because they come directly from God. So our obligation to the weak is not negotiable, even when we are attempting to limit a grievous evil like abortion. In fact, in a Doctrinal Note on voting, Rome has gone so far as to state that elevating some teachings at the expense of others is "incoherent" and a potential "detriment" to the faith as a whole:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)
Rome explains that the faith is a cohesive and coherent whole. We cannot pick and choose values because they are intertwined. Poverty, in particular, is directly tied to vast numbers of innocent deaths. Thousands of children die each day for want of clean water. Even more die for lack of simple items like mosquito netting or from preventable childhood diseases.
In the US, children living in hunger doubled in 2007, to about 700,000. Since the majority of women who procure abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line, and about half of them are already mothers, it would seem foolish, in either moral or secular terms, to view the issues as wholly separate.
The opinions of individual bishops should be respected, but they are not 'Vicars of the Pope', they are only authentic teachers (teachers speaking with the authority of Christ) when they are in communion with the Holy See. As we can see, Rome, as the Sister, sees "pro-life" as much, much broader than just abortion. Further, the Vicar of Christ has seemingly rejected your concept of elevating a narrow application of pro-life to special status, even at the cost of other teachings.
In fact, in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS Pope Benedict introduces the concept of "Eucharistic Consistency" (#83). The Doctrinal Note is cited, and its broad list of fundamental and inalienable moral principles in #4 are directly referred to as "not negotiable" and tied to fitness for Holy Communion in political life.
This leads to several questions:
Q1. Are you asserting that Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul are/were both incorrect? That is, are you asserting that it is a better application of Church teaching to elevate abortion to special status at the expense of other fundamental moral principles?
Q2. Are you asserting that the Church's understanding of the Gospels is incorrect in that it is wholly correct to rush to judgement and enlist others to join one in casting stones? We are, after all, not just talking about CCC 2478, which the Church ties to the 8th Commandment, but the Beatitudes and Pope John Paul II's explanation of the proper application of CIC 915.
Q3. Are you asserting the Catholic Church's definition of "pro-life" is too broad? Sister Welding invoked specific examples of innocent death, but you label her comments "ludicrous". The Church's official position is that all attacks on human life are illicit and must be considered (see the Doctrinal Note, EVANGELIUM VITAE, CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, and the USCCB's document on Faithful Citizenship). Dismissing some attacks outright would appear to be a direct rejection of this position.
Peace
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sad news leading to better focus?
I missed the annual Thanksgiving Mass at our parish. For several years parishioners have brought wine and bread for a special blessing. I like it because it helps, at least for a moment, to give Thanksgiving more meaning for me than gluttony and a four day weekend.
I had intended to make it up with a few additional minutes of prayer each day, but must admit that went out the window as well. On Sunday, my disabled son and I arrived for the 7:30 Mass with just moments to spare so even my regular few moments of devotion were missed.
At the end of the Mass we had, as we always do, a few moments of announcements. What made this week a little different was a personal announcement from our pastor. Although most 'regulars' were aware that he had been having some health issues, they are apparently more severe than most of us (or at least I) realized. He told us that he had met with our bishop and, at his urging, would be taking a long medical leave of absence.
Sadly, among my first thoughts were 'what will happen to us?' While many parishes have no pastor we have been blessed with a very active one. Ashamed, my thoughts turned next to Thanksgiving, and how I had been reminded of how much I, personally, and we, the parish, had to be thankful for. Last, my thoughts turned to our pastor and his needs.
In retrospect, these thoughts show how far I still have to go as a Christian, but their order also seems to mirror God's gradual raising of the bar for us. I once heard a homily in which the priest proposed that God may have to teach us like we teach our own children. That is, we must crawl before we can walk. The example he gave was 'she hits him, he kills her in retaliation'. In the Old Testament, God raised the bar, limiting us to an 'eye for an eye'. Once we had accepted that concept, Jesus raised the bar further, both in words and in actions; love for hate, service over self.
My thinking seemed to follow a similar path. What about me? What about us? Then, thank you God for all you have given me. Finally, should I not try to help and serve one who has been so committed to serving others? In reading the Gospels, the bar seems to go even higher, I should be willing to serve the weakest among us, regardless of how I perceive their past actions.
Perhaps the simplest equation for our Faith can be found in Luke 10, where Jesus accepts the answer that salvation lies in loving God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. Considering my reaction on Sunday, it occurs to me that Thanksgiving, at least in spirit, can be an attempt to honor the first part of that equation. But if I am to honor both parts, I cannot simply be thankful, I must also answer the call to serve. So I am going to attempt to remember my pastor and his family in my daily prayers and try to do more to serve my parish. I know, it isn't much, but baby steps are an incremental move towards walking!
I had intended to make it up with a few additional minutes of prayer each day, but must admit that went out the window as well. On Sunday, my disabled son and I arrived for the 7:30 Mass with just moments to spare so even my regular few moments of devotion were missed.
At the end of the Mass we had, as we always do, a few moments of announcements. What made this week a little different was a personal announcement from our pastor. Although most 'regulars' were aware that he had been having some health issues, they are apparently more severe than most of us (or at least I) realized. He told us that he had met with our bishop and, at his urging, would be taking a long medical leave of absence.
Sadly, among my first thoughts were 'what will happen to us?' While many parishes have no pastor we have been blessed with a very active one. Ashamed, my thoughts turned next to Thanksgiving, and how I had been reminded of how much I, personally, and we, the parish, had to be thankful for. Last, my thoughts turned to our pastor and his needs.
In retrospect, these thoughts show how far I still have to go as a Christian, but their order also seems to mirror God's gradual raising of the bar for us. I once heard a homily in which the priest proposed that God may have to teach us like we teach our own children. That is, we must crawl before we can walk. The example he gave was 'she hits him, he kills her in retaliation'. In the Old Testament, God raised the bar, limiting us to an 'eye for an eye'. Once we had accepted that concept, Jesus raised the bar further, both in words and in actions; love for hate, service over self.
My thinking seemed to follow a similar path. What about me? What about us? Then, thank you God for all you have given me. Finally, should I not try to help and serve one who has been so committed to serving others? In reading the Gospels, the bar seems to go even higher, I should be willing to serve the weakest among us, regardless of how I perceive their past actions.
Perhaps the simplest equation for our Faith can be found in Luke 10, where Jesus accepts the answer that salvation lies in loving God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. Considering my reaction on Sunday, it occurs to me that Thanksgiving, at least in spirit, can be an attempt to honor the first part of that equation. But if I am to honor both parts, I cannot simply be thankful, I must also answer the call to serve. So I am going to attempt to remember my pastor and his family in my daily prayers and try to do more to serve my parish. I know, it isn't much, but baby steps are an incremental move towards walking!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
End of Times... So What?
Since this is the end of the Church's year, we hear a lot of references about the end of times. Readings from Revelations, Mark 13, Luke 21...
Year after year, I am never really sure what to think about this. My lack of a clear emotional response seems more important this year. Believe it or not, there is a substantial faction of US citizens who are convinced that President Elect Obama is the anti-Christ and that a literal interpretation of Revelations is at hand.
My initial reaction upon hearing this was, 'wow, that's stupid'. But, to be fair, I have no way of proving that these people are wrong. Personally, I have always considered Revelations a veiled form of dissent against Roman oppression, but Jesus is quoted as making references to the end in the synoptic Gospels as well. When I try to play 'what if?', my first thoughts are a bit condescending, such as 'if the rapture comes and I am among the saved, who is going to feed my fish?' This, of course, leads to business ideas, like Rapture Insurance for Evangelical's household pets.
But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it does not matter to me. As far as I can tell, Jesus' instructions on salvation remain the same. Rather it is in the context of the Good Samaritan in Luke, or the final judgement in Matthew, my job is identical. As long as I have room for for spiritual improvement I don't need to worry about anything else. So, between Jesus setting the bar high and my endless faults, I am pretty well set!.
Year after year, I am never really sure what to think about this. My lack of a clear emotional response seems more important this year. Believe it or not, there is a substantial faction of US citizens who are convinced that President Elect Obama is the anti-Christ and that a literal interpretation of Revelations is at hand.
My initial reaction upon hearing this was, 'wow, that's stupid'. But, to be fair, I have no way of proving that these people are wrong. Personally, I have always considered Revelations a veiled form of dissent against Roman oppression, but Jesus is quoted as making references to the end in the synoptic Gospels as well. When I try to play 'what if?', my first thoughts are a bit condescending, such as 'if the rapture comes and I am among the saved, who is going to feed my fish?' This, of course, leads to business ideas, like Rapture Insurance for Evangelical's household pets.
But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it does not matter to me. As far as I can tell, Jesus' instructions on salvation remain the same. Rather it is in the context of the Good Samaritan in Luke, or the final judgement in Matthew, my job is identical. As long as I have room for for spiritual improvement I don't need to worry about anything else. So, between Jesus setting the bar high and my endless faults, I am pretty well set!.
Monday, November 24, 2008
All Nations...
I am always moved by Matthew 25, and hearing yesterday's reading was no exception. Although the passages move me every time I hear them, it is interesting to me to hear fresh points of view. In his Homily yesterday, the priest made two interesting points. First, unlike most of the parables, this one is harder to project oneself. It is easy to see oneself in either group, the goats or the sheep.
Sometimes we answer a call for charity, other times we turn a deaf ear. The priest noted that it may not even be possible for us to always answer, since we are human not God.
The other point he made which I had never considered is that there are actually three groups, not two. There are the sheep and the goats, but also the people in need, with whom Jesus directly associates with the Son of Man.
It has always been clear to me that the answer to Salvation is always the same. The criteria in yesterday's reading are nearly identical to the criteria given by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But the priest's observation that there are three groups got me thinking. In re-reading the passage again last night, it struck me that the Son of Man does not call all people before him, but "all nations". Further, both the damned and the saved are surprised at their fate. God's work was not recognized as such by either group.
This has me pondering on rather or not there is a lesson on our need to work as a community of faith, not just as individuals. It also has me wondering if the things we think matter to God are what we will, in fact, be judged on. Perhaps we need to answer Jesus' calls to service as broadly as we can, just in case...
Friday, November 21, 2008
Quick Note
For those who (quickly!) emailed me. I realize that I pointed to the same USCCB quote in the post just before my last one. The "makes a lot of sense to me" was meant to be a bit of a self deprecating joke. I am sorry that did not come through.
"One family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ..."
I do not normally spend much time at online Catholic forums. They pretty much discussion nothing but abortion. Everything leads to abortion, "Just Faith" is a bad program because it does not focus on abortion, "Renewal" is a bad program because it talked about something other than abortion...
People even try to specifically curtail abortion in their discussions ("NOT AN ABORTION THREAD!" in the subject line), but to no avail. But I was searching for more information on Fr. Newman's situation, which I wrote about a few days ago. For some reason I actually clicked on the Google result that I knew would take me to Catholic Answers. Predictably, the broadest consensus was that Newman was 100% right, should be made a bishop, and any Catholic who voted for Obama should be excommunicated. But the post below from "AgingCatholic" made a lot of sense to me:
Originally Posted by James Tetreault  I totally agree! |
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...litica_en.html
Read #4 in its entirety. For better or worse, Rome makes it clear that it is "incoherent" and a "detriment" to the faith to elevate individual teachings at the expense of others. The section then concludes with a list of 9 examples (highlighted in the text) of moral principles that do not permit compromise.
If there was any doubt if Rome was serious, Pope Benedict cleared the matter up in Sacramentum Caritatis:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...itatis_en.html
See #83, "Eucharistic consistency". The Pope cites the above document and reiterates that the values "are not negotiable".
This presents a huge problem for US Catholics, because all our major party presidential candidates hold intrinsically evil positions, including abortion. In this case, the words are not hyperbole. Abortion is an absolute, that is, there are no recognized licit applications. So, as Pope John Paul II explained in Vertitatis Splendor, some acts can be deemed intrinsically evil.
Fortunately, in addition to a Pope, we have a college of bishops, whose job is to help us properly apply Church teaching in our particular culture and circumstances. Since there is only one Vicar of Christ, and all bishops' authority belongs to him, the bishops try to work collectively and in communication with Rome, since only when they are in communion with Rome are they acting as authentic teachers. The USCCB, working in such a collaboration, produced a document on developing a proper moral conscience for Faithful Citizenship:
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizen...CStatement.pdf
If one looks to chattering by the laity, you can find dismissals and complaints, but conservative Catholic theologians, like Fr. Richard Neuhaus, have been extremely complimentary of the document's doctrinal accuracy. This should be no surprise, since very conservative Bishops, like Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, oversaw its preparation.
If we look at #27-#30, we find that the bishops reiterate Rome's instructions regarding our requirement to not elevate certain teachings at the expense of others. However, the bishops also give some guidance on what to do in a moral dilemma like the one we face. #36 and #37 acknowledge that such dilemmas exist and list a variety of options available to dealing with them. One of those options is to apply a concept normally referred to as "proportionate reasons". We know that this did not just come out of nowhere, because we have a leaked letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishops which explains the concept as well as some of its limitations.
The key is at the end of #37:
Quote:
| "In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching." |
Quote:
| "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." - CCC 1790 |
Quote:
| 29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ. |
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Again with the dumb...
I have really been surprised with the publicity and intensity that bishops have chastised the lay faithful over the presidential election. It appears that, for some US bishops, only one moral course of action was even remotely conceivable.
Given his past writings I expected Fr. Richard Neuhaus to make the argument that the bishops had over-estimated our intelligence in the Faithful Citizenship document. At least he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the document itself is theologically sound. The "Catholic Answers" crowd, who had taken it upon themselves to collapse the 9 broad "fundamental and inalienable ethical demands" that Rome had placed on us in voting into a much smaller subset that is of concern to "Serious Catholics", predictably argued that the document is evidence that the USCCB is a politically active secret liberal cabal...
But I am surprised at how overt some bishops have been. After all, the election is now over and healing must begin. Part of this may be human nature. If a bishop runs a political ad, there is an emotional investment in the outcome. And timing and statements where anything but subtle.
But Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio seems particularly blunt. DiMarzio reportedly oversaw the creation of the Bishop's Statement and now seems to be stating that we either did not understand it, or abused it. I, for one, would really like some elaboration on this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not our teaching on abortion is absolute? So John McCain's position on abortion, which includes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and maternal health, would seem intrinsically evil (VERITATIS SPLENDOR). In addition, McCain has publicly stated in the past that he has reservations about overturning Roe v. Wade, something that would be considered dissent from a Catholic politician.
In addition, my understanding is that our belief in life is comprehensive; conception to natural death. So shouldn't McCain's positions on war, poverty, medical care, and the death penalty all be factored in? In the document (#36 and #37), the bishops noted that choosing between intrinsically evil positions is a "moral dilemma". It gave guidelines, and then placed the final moral decision in the hands of individual Catholics. As I understand it, we would have all been compelled to follow the certainty of our individual consciences anyway (CCC 1790).
So let's consider the situation from a lay Catholic's point of view. For better or worse, there is zero measurable evidence that presidential voting for a 'less intrinsically evil' position on abortion (if there really is such a thing) actually has an effect on abortion in the US. Abortion rates have been falling for a couple of decades and dropped more sharply under pro-choice Clinton than intrinsically-evil-but-still-somehow-pro-life Bush. So, if we consider the practical implications of our vote - exactly as #36 and #37 advise, there is no blatant or obvious solution.
To make matters even more difficult, the same document specifically warns us, just as Rome's Doctrinal Note did (#4), that we cannot use the excuse of "limiting the harm" to take actions that are a detriment to other fundamental moral values (see #27-#30). No matter how much I worry about abortion, I cannot embrace, for example, unjust war.
If Catholics factor in multiple fundamental moral values, a broad understanding of pro-life, and their own perception of past and future relative effectiveness, it seems completely understandable that they are going to arrive at different conclusions. I find it extremely disconcerting that Bishops like DiMarzio are insinuating that only one moral conclusion could have been reached. Especially since the document he, himself, oversaw appears to express a theme similar to one I wrote on the other day. I noted that our teaching on life is so broad, that we, not being God, cannot love enough to fully embrace it. Instead, we find the capacity to embrace pieces of it and strive to add more.
DiMarzio seems to be implying that he, himself, can infallibly view all of our pro life teachings in perfect context. Further, that it is seemingly no big deal, since we all would have reached the same conclusion if we simply had better reading and comprehension skills. If that is the case, I wonder what he felt about the inclusion of this in the document:
29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Education is bad for the Church?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3464073/Educated-Catholics-have-sown-dissent-and-confusion-in-the-Church-claims-bishop.html
Education has a "dark side" which is related to "original sin"? Uh, wow.
Although there is a perception that the Church has been 'anti knowledge', that is largely false. Galileo's problems had more to do with interpersonal relationships than a rigid resistance to early scientific thought. Likewise, the Church never rejected evolution, but simply warned that we must still accept the hand of God in creation.
The 'big bang' was originally predicted by physicist Georges Lamaitre - Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Just this week I was reading a paper by geneticist Kevin FitzGerald, PhD from Georgetown University. That is Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, PhD, he is a Catholic priest.
It really is not my place to second guess a bishop, particularly one who has been charged with addressing a drop in Mass attendance. But if, by some odd twist of fate, Rome were to accidentally get me on the phone, my comment would be that the problem is not that we have left the middle ages, but that Catholics are having trouble connecting their faith to their everyday lives.
Non Catholic denominations can fill their seats in other ways, lights and contemporary music, the best volleyball league, whatever. I would not fault pastors for trying these things, since the intention would be to save. But I think we need to go deeper. To me, one of the best things to come out of the Second Vatican Council is that we, the lay faithful, are given an opportunity to act. I cannot explain how reaffirming it is for my faith to see people make an extra effort to exchange the sign of peace with my disabled son. All his odd quirks that earn us a wide birth everywhere else seem to be a magnet for compassion in the house of God.
But it is hard to carry that action outside of the Church, and perhaps the bishops could help. It is not my place to question their leadership, but with the heavy emphasis on things like abortion and gay marriage, we often find ourselves acting defensively in areas of seeming moral ambiguity. Abortion draws us to politics and leaves us arguing about all imperfect choices. Protecting marriage often leaves us open to venting our own discriminatory thoughts. I believe that part of the reason that I am an observant Catholic today is that the parish of my youth had a strong emphasis on social justice and the plight of the poor.
It tied it all together. We built that house, we helped that family, it is real, we can see it, it brought us together, and it seemed to directly connect to the Gospel we were hearing.
Education has a "dark side" which is related to "original sin"? Uh, wow.
Although there is a perception that the Church has been 'anti knowledge', that is largely false. Galileo's problems had more to do with interpersonal relationships than a rigid resistance to early scientific thought. Likewise, the Church never rejected evolution, but simply warned that we must still accept the hand of God in creation.
The 'big bang' was originally predicted by physicist Georges Lamaitre - Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Just this week I was reading a paper by geneticist Kevin FitzGerald, PhD from Georgetown University. That is Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, PhD, he is a Catholic priest.
It really is not my place to second guess a bishop, particularly one who has been charged with addressing a drop in Mass attendance. But if, by some odd twist of fate, Rome were to accidentally get me on the phone, my comment would be that the problem is not that we have left the middle ages, but that Catholics are having trouble connecting their faith to their everyday lives.
Non Catholic denominations can fill their seats in other ways, lights and contemporary music, the best volleyball league, whatever. I would not fault pastors for trying these things, since the intention would be to save. But I think we need to go deeper. To me, one of the best things to come out of the Second Vatican Council is that we, the lay faithful, are given an opportunity to act. I cannot explain how reaffirming it is for my faith to see people make an extra effort to exchange the sign of peace with my disabled son. All his odd quirks that earn us a wide birth everywhere else seem to be a magnet for compassion in the house of God.
But it is hard to carry that action outside of the Church, and perhaps the bishops could help. It is not my place to question their leadership, but with the heavy emphasis on things like abortion and gay marriage, we often find ourselves acting defensively in areas of seeming moral ambiguity. Abortion draws us to politics and leaves us arguing about all imperfect choices. Protecting marriage often leaves us open to venting our own discriminatory thoughts. I believe that part of the reason that I am an observant Catholic today is that the parish of my youth had a strong emphasis on social justice and the plight of the poor.
It tied it all together. We built that house, we helped that family, it is real, we can see it, it brought us together, and it seemed to directly connect to the Gospel we were hearing.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Some days I have empathy for Protestant Reformation...
For me, being Catholic is both a religion and a cultural identity. My family lived for several years in a house without indoor plumbing because, quite literally, my father would not lie about being Catholic for the sake of a job. One of my first recollections of public school was the teacher explaining to the class what a WASP was, and that I was not one of them. But everyone was going to show true Christian charity to the poor pagan boy anyway...
Instead of making an effort to fit in, I began wearing my Catholicism as a badge of distinction. Since I was partially motivated by a deep dislike for the teacher (and later took waaay too much pleasure in her getting embroiled in a titillating small town sexual scandal), this was not nearly as noble as it sounds.
It was not until later in life that I began to really appreciate our faith's true place in my life. The extended family of parish members who were there for me when my father was dying. The community that came together when a classmate of my daughter's struggled with, and ultimately succumbed to, a rare form of bone cancer. The looks for shared joy when my severely disabled son took first communion...
Over the last few years I have spent a lot of time studying Church history, and have increasingly found myself taking the role of an 'apologist'. It is not that I deny that the human leadership of the Church makes mistakes, but I think that those mistakes have to be viewed in the broader context of human history.
For example, I have come to accept the sexual abuse scandals as a combination of misguided efforts to protect the Church and poor applications of forgiveness and charity. I have gotten caught up in the slippery slope of poor judgement myself, so I have tried, very hard, not to judge the US bishops too harshly. Even when my stomach was still churning over the first revelations, we made a conscious effort to keep our collection giving up. More importantly, I have tried to remind myself on a regular basis not to let the actions of a few, no matter how horrible, color my perception of the entire ordinary, who give so much.
But there are times that I am sorely tested. Take this news release for example. The headline says it all: "Catholic Campaign for Human Development Ends All Funding to ACORN". If one relies exclusively on say, TV news this might seem like a welcome development. There are, after all, many questions about ACORN...
The problem is that, if one bothers to actually research the facts, the questions and accusations are seemingly baseless and have only been raised and pushed for political purposes:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/727793.html
As ACORN itself notes, the agency, not others, has been the chief whistle blower in virtually all cases. For example, it is required, by law, to submit all voter registration forms received, but flagged suspicious ones before passing them on. So when Bishop Roger Morin says this:
If use measurable reality as a yardstick, we do not have a significant problem with voter fraud in this country. In fact, when Indiana defended its voter ID law in front of the US Supreme Court, no evidence of actual voter fraud was presented. But we do have a serious problem with voter suppression and disenfranchisement. For example, we know that the Indiana law obstructed elderly nuns from voting.
Even more disturbing, the Attorney General firing scandal appears to have a strong connection to partisan based voter suppression (see also here). Remember, this is not just the realm of political accusations, but also a growing chain of confessions and criminal convictions. If you take away a person's right to vote, eliminating their voice in directing society, are you not attacking that person's inalienable rights as a human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council? Further, if you twist the Justice Department for partisan political purposes are you not eroding our legitimacy as a society in the eyes of God?
ACORN primarily is focused on activities that we, as Catholics, should support. For example, it's efforts to register the poor and dispossessed to vote is in keeping with our obligation to social justice. Hiring the poor to do the actual work is not without problems, but a laudable goal in its own right. Similarly, its work on affordable housing meets our obligation to the development of a socially just economy, while its requirement that participants undergo training and counseling on money management and fiscal restraint is compatible with our beliefs regarding personal responsibility.
There may be legitimate reasons for the CCHD not to have a financial connection to ACORN, but false accusations and the malfeasance of an employee eight years ago does not seem to be one. Using similar logic, I could argue that the much broader child abuse scandals, combined with all those questions about Catholicism's legitimacy as a Christian faith raised by various Protestant sects, is a valid reason to stop putting envelopes in the collection basket at Mass.
This leaves me wondering if the Bishops are acting out of ignorance of the underlying facts, or reacting to pressure from Catholics who have bought into the 'voter fraud' myth. Either way, I cannot help but be disappointed. I believe that we, as Catholics, should be at the forefront of the fight to enfranchise the poor in our political process, regardless of the partisan political consequences of doing so.
I realize that the Bishops may sometimes factoring in other things, like the need for unity. But when I see a group that appears to be legitimately pursuing part of our obligation to the less fortunate viciously maligned in a partisan political fight, it is hard for me not to take sides and make judgements. After all, Senator McCain attended an ACORN rally and called the participants "Great Americans" just two years ago...
Instead of making an effort to fit in, I began wearing my Catholicism as a badge of distinction. Since I was partially motivated by a deep dislike for the teacher (and later took waaay too much pleasure in her getting embroiled in a titillating small town sexual scandal), this was not nearly as noble as it sounds.
It was not until later in life that I began to really appreciate our faith's true place in my life. The extended family of parish members who were there for me when my father was dying. The community that came together when a classmate of my daughter's struggled with, and ultimately succumbed to, a rare form of bone cancer. The looks for shared joy when my severely disabled son took first communion...
Over the last few years I have spent a lot of time studying Church history, and have increasingly found myself taking the role of an 'apologist'. It is not that I deny that the human leadership of the Church makes mistakes, but I think that those mistakes have to be viewed in the broader context of human history.
For example, I have come to accept the sexual abuse scandals as a combination of misguided efforts to protect the Church and poor applications of forgiveness and charity. I have gotten caught up in the slippery slope of poor judgement myself, so I have tried, very hard, not to judge the US bishops too harshly. Even when my stomach was still churning over the first revelations, we made a conscious effort to keep our collection giving up. More importantly, I have tried to remind myself on a regular basis not to let the actions of a few, no matter how horrible, color my perception of the entire ordinary, who give so much.
But there are times that I am sorely tested. Take this news release for example. The headline says it all: "Catholic Campaign for Human Development Ends All Funding to ACORN". If one relies exclusively on say, TV news this might seem like a welcome development. There are, after all, many questions about ACORN...
The problem is that, if one bothers to actually research the facts, the questions and accusations are seemingly baseless and have only been raised and pushed for political purposes:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/727793.html
As ACORN itself notes, the agency, not others, has been the chief whistle blower in virtually all cases. For example, it is required, by law, to submit all voter registration forms received, but flagged suspicious ones before passing them on. So when Bishop Roger Morin says this:
"More recently, the Subcommittee also became concerned aboutHe appears to be saying that the subcommittee is reacting to false witness born against an agency which is, seemingly, pursuing the common good. In its Doctrinal Note on participation in political life, the Vatican states:
widespread reports of ACORN involvement in alleged voter registration fraud and
political partisanship."
"The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best
expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it
succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the
human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this
principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as
well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.
The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite
fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is
respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the
Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is,
indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to
play an active part in public life and administration»."
If use measurable reality as a yardstick, we do not have a significant problem with voter fraud in this country. In fact, when Indiana defended its voter ID law in front of the US Supreme Court, no evidence of actual voter fraud was presented. But we do have a serious problem with voter suppression and disenfranchisement. For example, we know that the Indiana law obstructed elderly nuns from voting.
Even more disturbing, the Attorney General firing scandal appears to have a strong connection to partisan based voter suppression (see also here). Remember, this is not just the realm of political accusations, but also a growing chain of confessions and criminal convictions. If you take away a person's right to vote, eliminating their voice in directing society, are you not attacking that person's inalienable rights as a human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council? Further, if you twist the Justice Department for partisan political purposes are you not eroding our legitimacy as a society in the eyes of God?
ACORN primarily is focused on activities that we, as Catholics, should support. For example, it's efforts to register the poor and dispossessed to vote is in keeping with our obligation to social justice. Hiring the poor to do the actual work is not without problems, but a laudable goal in its own right. Similarly, its work on affordable housing meets our obligation to the development of a socially just economy, while its requirement that participants undergo training and counseling on money management and fiscal restraint is compatible with our beliefs regarding personal responsibility.
There may be legitimate reasons for the CCHD not to have a financial connection to ACORN, but false accusations and the malfeasance of an employee eight years ago does not seem to be one. Using similar logic, I could argue that the much broader child abuse scandals, combined with all those questions about Catholicism's legitimacy as a Christian faith raised by various Protestant sects, is a valid reason to stop putting envelopes in the collection basket at Mass.
This leaves me wondering if the Bishops are acting out of ignorance of the underlying facts, or reacting to pressure from Catholics who have bought into the 'voter fraud' myth. Either way, I cannot help but be disappointed. I believe that we, as Catholics, should be at the forefront of the fight to enfranchise the poor in our political process, regardless of the partisan political consequences of doing so.
I realize that the Bishops may sometimes factoring in other things, like the need for unity. But when I see a group that appears to be legitimately pursuing part of our obligation to the less fortunate viciously maligned in a partisan political fight, it is hard for me not to take sides and make judgements. After all, Senator McCain attended an ACORN rally and called the participants "Great Americans" just two years ago...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Perhaps some fear is a good thing...
It actually took me a long time to realize that the first and last readings each Sunday are related. I suppose that I should have been taught that at some point (or perhaps I was, but just wasn't paying attention). But since it dawned on me, I have found that it often helps me have better insight into both readings. I have also found that, as our liturgical calendar repeats, I often find new connections to ponder.
Yesterday's readings are no exception. In the past the concept that has stood out for me is that we have an obligation to put all the gifts that God has given us to proper use. In the homily, the celebrant made an extremely interesting point by taking the Gospel reading even more literally. Instead of thinking of it as 'gifts', the priest proposed that we can view it as being entrusted with God's possessions. And, in that light, he then pointed out that among the most valuable possessions we have been entrusted with are our fellow human beings.
In re-reading the verses last night I happened to notice another theme, fear of God. This is actually a recurring theme in the Old Testament. It comes up so often that it can be easy to tune it out. But look at the end of the Gospel reading. The third servant loses what he has and ends up in the bitter wilderness. Jesus does not stress fear in the parable, but the concept of dire consequences remains. Also, His listeners would have already been very familiar with the many references to fearing the Lord in the Old Testament.
What made me think of this was something the priest said. As he talked about us all as God's possessions, and our obligation to be in the service of each other, he noted that we should be motivated in this by love, not fear. Fear, he said, would be the "worst possible motivation". This got me thinking about the seeming contradiction between a loving God and one which we are, at least scripturally, frequently told it is well to fear.
It seems to me that the answer is right in the first few lines of the recommended Responsorial Psalm in the link above. Fear of the lord is a blessing because it is connected to walking in "his ways". If we fear God, then would it not stand to reason that we believe in Him? Further, once you fear (and believe) in God, what else would you have to fear? All the destructive fears that consume so many, people who look different from us, socioeconomic competition from classes beneath us, powerful and competent women, etc., seem insignificant compared to eternal suffering!
With all due respect to my priest, in that light I think that a little fear may be a good thing...
Yesterday's readings are no exception. In the past the concept that has stood out for me is that we have an obligation to put all the gifts that God has given us to proper use. In the homily, the celebrant made an extremely interesting point by taking the Gospel reading even more literally. Instead of thinking of it as 'gifts', the priest proposed that we can view it as being entrusted with God's possessions. And, in that light, he then pointed out that among the most valuable possessions we have been entrusted with are our fellow human beings.
In re-reading the verses last night I happened to notice another theme, fear of God. This is actually a recurring theme in the Old Testament. It comes up so often that it can be easy to tune it out. But look at the end of the Gospel reading. The third servant loses what he has and ends up in the bitter wilderness. Jesus does not stress fear in the parable, but the concept of dire consequences remains. Also, His listeners would have already been very familiar with the many references to fearing the Lord in the Old Testament.
What made me think of this was something the priest said. As he talked about us all as God's possessions, and our obligation to be in the service of each other, he noted that we should be motivated in this by love, not fear. Fear, he said, would be the "worst possible motivation". This got me thinking about the seeming contradiction between a loving God and one which we are, at least scripturally, frequently told it is well to fear.
It seems to me that the answer is right in the first few lines of the recommended Responsorial Psalm in the link above. Fear of the lord is a blessing because it is connected to walking in "his ways". If we fear God, then would it not stand to reason that we believe in Him? Further, once you fear (and believe) in God, what else would you have to fear? All the destructive fears that consume so many, people who look different from us, socioeconomic competition from classes beneath us, powerful and competent women, etc., seem insignificant compared to eternal suffering!
With all due respect to my priest, in that light I think that a little fear may be a good thing...
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Saint Paul was right...
I had started on a different post for today. But then I came across a reference to this news article on the Washington Monthly's online blog. Author Steve Benen's pieces often generate interesting debates in the comments area, but I was amazed at the volume and intensity that the post received.
I, and several others, commented primarily on what the Church officially teaches and explained that the statements of a single priest or even a bishop do not represent the official views of the Church. But there was still considerable outrage, including a great deal from self described Catholics (and many "former Catholic"s). In re-reading Rev. Jay Scott Newman's comments, I must admit that I can at least empathize with the reaction. But as I have let this digest, I am starting to feel a great deal of pity as well.
Our Catholic teaching on life is incredibly broad and incredibly difficult. As John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), we are each endowed with inalienable rights. The most fundamental being our right to life. Since these rights come to us from God, they cannot be abridged by our fellow man, and remain with us in every stage of our development and in every condition. I, personally, get this in principle. If we are each a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us each infinitely, then the distinctions that we draw between ourselves are meaningless. Just consider the math, 99.8 times infinity is neither larger or smaller than 107.62 times infinity and both numbers are beyond the scope of human comprehension.
But most of us can at least glimpse pieces of this incredibly broad teaching. For example, I do not think that I know anyone who would bludgeon their own newborn child to death at birth. And I am quite certain that most of my friends and acquaintances would be filled with angst and grief if they were confronted with a medical end-of-life decision for a beloved family member. But as we move towards the extreme ends of live, like when we are talking about tiny clusters of cells that, in many ways, act like normal maternal organ tissue, it becomes hard for many of us to view such life as exactly equivalent to our own.
When our own perceptions of 'worth' or 'value' enter into the mix, vision of our true equality in the eyes of God can become even more obscured. Consider, we all know people who would grieve horribly at suspending extraordinary medical treatment for a beloved parent but who would boast about their own willingness to pull the plug on, say, Osama bin Laden.
I mention this, because it appears to me that Fr. Newman feels our teaching on life quite strongly with regards to the unborn. But, sadly, he appears to believe that not being in lock step with him politically means that a portion (perhaps a significant portion) of his flock have turned their backs on the inalienable rights of the human person. I, personally think that this almost certainly misguided.
I believe that the real problem is that we each cannot love enough. God can love infinitely, but we cannot. So when it comes to an incredibly broad teaching like life, we love spottily, unevenly, and, most importantly, in unique individual combinations, across a broad spectrum. Just after Halloween I met a woman who is off to India, called to help continue Mother Theresa's work. I can glimpse that it is important, but cannot see myself going. Even though 4,000 children die every day around the world for want of two buckets of potable water, my prayers for them are, sadly, not as intense as the ones I offer for my own children.
In the encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST ("God is Love"), Pope Benedict points to St. Paul:
Fr. Newman's comments also reminds me of St. Paul in a couple of other ways:
For the later part of the campaign, at least two research/watchdog groups noted that McCain/Palin advertising was 100% negative. Further, many of the claims being made were widely reported to be untrue, or at least misleading. I cannot help but wonder if Fr. Newman's views have been shaped, not solely through objective reality, but through a multi-million dollar attempt to demonize a fellow child of God. As St. Paul noted, we need to bring things into the light to see their true nature.
This can be difficult if others are intent on creating an intentional cloud of deception. I also find it a little disappointing that Fr. Newman is taking a teaching that is incredibly broad, and not only collapsing it to something very narrow, but then feeling that he must compromise even on the much narrower principle. After all, not only has our teaching on life seemingly been reduced to abortion, the distinction between 'righteous' and 'mortal peril' is seen as hinging on a sliding scale of believing in killing a narrower number of innocents.
I cannot think of another form of serious or intrinsic evil where so many Catholics are willing, as Fr. Newman, to label cooperation as just. If McCain supported the molestation of a limited number of children, would anyone be describing him as "plausible pro-child"? But, somehow, supporting certain types of abortions, continuation of a war that the Holy See has questioned, and a long history of supporting the death penalty makes him, unquestionably, "pro-life"?
Again, thinking of St. Paul, this seems backwards to me:
Is it our place to decide what level of moral erosion is acceptable and redefine the natural law to match? Or are we supposed to strive to serve as living examples of that law as broadly and completely as we can?
To be clear, I would argue that, as divisive and over-reaching as Fr. Newman's comments seem to be, he does have a legitimate point. Rome has made it clear that we have an obligation to defend certain fundamental and inalienable rights in voting (see #4). Pope Benedict has written that this obligation relates directly to salvation and fitness for the sacrament of communion (see #83). If a Catholic did vote expressly for the purpose of promoting, say, abortion, then a serious moral dilemma would exist. But, since the US bishops have placed the responsibility on individual Catholics to make morally complex choices in voting when facing imperfect choices (see #36-37), we should try to view the choices of our fellow Catholics in the most favorable light, even when those choices do not match our own.
I, and several others, commented primarily on what the Church officially teaches and explained that the statements of a single priest or even a bishop do not represent the official views of the Church. But there was still considerable outrage, including a great deal from self described Catholics (and many "former Catholic"s). In re-reading Rev. Jay Scott Newman's comments, I must admit that I can at least empathize with the reaction. But as I have let this digest, I am starting to feel a great deal of pity as well.
Our Catholic teaching on life is incredibly broad and incredibly difficult. As John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), we are each endowed with inalienable rights. The most fundamental being our right to life. Since these rights come to us from God, they cannot be abridged by our fellow man, and remain with us in every stage of our development and in every condition. I, personally, get this in principle. If we are each a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us each infinitely, then the distinctions that we draw between ourselves are meaningless. Just consider the math, 99.8 times infinity is neither larger or smaller than 107.62 times infinity and both numbers are beyond the scope of human comprehension.
But most of us can at least glimpse pieces of this incredibly broad teaching. For example, I do not think that I know anyone who would bludgeon their own newborn child to death at birth. And I am quite certain that most of my friends and acquaintances would be filled with angst and grief if they were confronted with a medical end-of-life decision for a beloved family member. But as we move towards the extreme ends of live, like when we are talking about tiny clusters of cells that, in many ways, act like normal maternal organ tissue, it becomes hard for many of us to view such life as exactly equivalent to our own.
When our own perceptions of 'worth' or 'value' enter into the mix, vision of our true equality in the eyes of God can become even more obscured. Consider, we all know people who would grieve horribly at suspending extraordinary medical treatment for a beloved parent but who would boast about their own willingness to pull the plug on, say, Osama bin Laden.
I mention this, because it appears to me that Fr. Newman feels our teaching on life quite strongly with regards to the unborn. But, sadly, he appears to believe that not being in lock step with him politically means that a portion (perhaps a significant portion) of his flock have turned their backs on the inalienable rights of the human person. I, personally think that this almost certainly misguided.
I believe that the real problem is that we each cannot love enough. God can love infinitely, but we cannot. So when it comes to an incredibly broad teaching like life, we love spottily, unevenly, and, most importantly, in unique individual combinations, across a broad spectrum. Just after Halloween I met a woman who is off to India, called to help continue Mother Theresa's work. I can glimpse that it is important, but cannot see myself going. Even though 4,000 children die every day around the world for want of two buckets of potable water, my prayers for them are, sadly, not as intense as the ones I offer for my own children.
In the encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST ("God is Love"), Pope Benedict points to St. Paul:
34. Interior openness to the Catholic dimension of the Church cannot fail to dispose charity workers to work in harmony with other organizations in serving various forms of need, but in a way that respects what is distinctive about the service which Christ requested of his disciples. Saint Paul, in his hymn to charity (cf. 1 Cor 13), teaches us that it is always more than activity alone: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (v. 3). This hymn must be the Magna Carta of all ecclesial service; it sums up all the reflections on love which I have offered throughout this Encyclical Letter. Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift.I believe that the Holy Father is correct. Without love, Fr. Newman's attempts to lead his flock will mean nothing. It seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for Fr. Newman and his entire flock to grow in love together. Instead of debating whose love is most urgent, or correct, they could all strive to love more broadly. Some might grow in their love for the unborn, others for the victims of war and torture, or the attack on life represented by poverty.
Fr. Newman's comments also reminds me of St. Paul in a couple of other ways:
"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.First, I respect the father's right to an opinion, but I can find no evidence to support the idea that Senator Obama's position on abortion is particularly unique in his political caucus, let alone record setting. Likewise I can find very little evidence that the senator's political opposition was/is especially "pro-life". Governor Palin has not pursued abortion as a political agenda. Like Senator Biden, she has publicly stated that it would not be appropriate for her to push her beliefs on others. Similarly, Senator McCain has publicly questioned the wisdom of overturning Roe v. Wade.
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
For the later part of the campaign, at least two research/watchdog groups noted that McCain/Palin advertising was 100% negative. Further, many of the claims being made were widely reported to be untrue, or at least misleading. I cannot help but wonder if Fr. Newman's views have been shaped, not solely through objective reality, but through a multi-million dollar attempt to demonize a fellow child of God. As St. Paul noted, we need to bring things into the light to see their true nature.
"Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth." Ephesians 5:6-9
This can be difficult if others are intent on creating an intentional cloud of deception. I also find it a little disappointing that Fr. Newman is taking a teaching that is incredibly broad, and not only collapsing it to something very narrow, but then feeling that he must compromise even on the much narrower principle. After all, not only has our teaching on life seemingly been reduced to abortion, the distinction between 'righteous' and 'mortal peril' is seen as hinging on a sliding scale of believing in killing a narrower number of innocents.
I cannot think of another form of serious or intrinsic evil where so many Catholics are willing, as Fr. Newman, to label cooperation as just. If McCain supported the molestation of a limited number of children, would anyone be describing him as "plausible pro-child"? But, somehow, supporting certain types of abortions, continuation of a war that the Holy See has questioned, and a long history of supporting the death penalty makes him, unquestionably, "pro-life"?
Again, thinking of St. Paul, this seems backwards to me:
"Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." - Philippians 2:5-6
Is it our place to decide what level of moral erosion is acceptable and redefine the natural law to match? Or are we supposed to strive to serve as living examples of that law as broadly and completely as we can?
To be clear, I would argue that, as divisive and over-reaching as Fr. Newman's comments seem to be, he does have a legitimate point. Rome has made it clear that we have an obligation to defend certain fundamental and inalienable rights in voting (see #4). Pope Benedict has written that this obligation relates directly to salvation and fitness for the sacrament of communion (see #83). If a Catholic did vote expressly for the purpose of promoting, say, abortion, then a serious moral dilemma would exist. But, since the US bishops have placed the responsibility on individual Catholics to make morally complex choices in voting when facing imperfect choices (see #36-37), we should try to view the choices of our fellow Catholics in the most favorable light, even when those choices do not match our own.
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to
interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a
favorable way:
'Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a
favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he
cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter
understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not
suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct
interpretation so that he may be saved.'" - CCC 2478
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)