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:

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.

"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."

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.

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