The Five Non-Negotiables Concept Is Not Catholic Doctrine

 

For at least the last two election cycles, maybe more, a concept has popped up that has gained popularity amongst those of a conservative Catholic political bent. They call these the "five non-negotiables" (5NN). Several priests who are popular amongst some Catholics have promoted them, along with some similarly popular lay Web sites/orgs. That is the context for this post, and particularly because today two good friends of mine shared a priest's homily that leverages them. 

Where I Am Coming From

Let me start by making clear my own commitments, because too often people assume all sorts of things and are quick to be dismissive of those with whom they disagree. They want to label them, put them in a box, and tuck them neatly on a high shelf in their figurative closets, or they want to toss the box out in the trash. 

I am a Catholic convert from Protestantism. I came to the Church through a deep study of Christian history and, correspondingly, Christian thought from the Apostles on down to the present. I by no means claim to be an expert on all of Christian thought. That would be, quite frankly, impossible for any one human in this life. But I have studied a lot, and it was my study and ever growing love of the fullness of truth as expressed in Catholic doctrine that led me to the Church. (That and the Holy Spirit, I like to think!)

My study has not stopped. I joined the Dominican Order in 2007 as a lay Dominican and made life promises on 6 August 2011. Study is one of the four pillars of Dominican spirituality, and "veritas" (truth) is one of our mottos. (Hey, after 800 years, you pick up a few..) None of that gives me special authority or gives me any guarantee to be free from error, but I hope it at least illustrates my commitment to the Truth, not just intellectually but also spiritually. I live by a daily rule that includes the Divine Office and the rosary, among other things such as daily reading of Scripture and study that pertains to our Dominican vocation oriented towards the salvation of souls.

I was married in 1999, and as of writing, I have seven lovely children, ranging in age of two to nineteen. My wife and I (my wife mostly!) have almost exclusively homeschooled our children and made every effort to raise them in the Catholic faith. We also, for what it is worth, have attended an FSSP parish for a year when we lived in Tulsa, and (later) a parish in NJ with a flourishing Latin mass community for some years that we were an active part of. I personally have great fondness for the Extraordinary Form, particularly high solemn masses. 

Politically, I am an independent, although I have pretty consistently voted for GOP candidates, and that was informed not a little bit by my concern over abortion. My bias, such as it is, is center leaning right, if I had to put a label on it like that. It really depends on the issue in question though, because my actual political party affiliation is none. If anything, it would be closest to the American Solidarity Party because they, like I, at least try to take an orthodox Catholic stance on all the issues. In matters of society and politics, I try to follow the whole social doctrine of the Church, and I have read many encyclicals pertaining to this, the bishops' guides to faithful citizenship, and (perhaps most importantly) the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, cover to cover. I have the highlights to prove it.  😇

I hope this illustrates I am anything but the stereotypical "flaming liberal." And I hope it at least earns a thoughtful reading, in a cultural environment in which we are far too quick to dismiss anyone who even has the slightest disagreements with us. I am ever committed to seeking the Truth, and living in accord with it as best I am able. 

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #1 Political Motivation

And so, that gets us to the point at hand. While I do appreciate the intent behind the 5NN, I find it to be too much of a reduction of the full, beautiful teaching of the Church. More than that, I fear that its popularity has been, unconsciously I am willing to grant, driven more by political commitments than by an honest appreciation and presentation of the social doctrine of the Church. That every person who promotes it uses it either to directly criticize the Democratic Party and/or to directly promote voting for the GOP appears, to me, evidence of that. 

And I fear that far too many Americans who are members of both major parties are too uncritical of the problems with their own party platforms/candidates, while being overly critical of the other. This feeds nicely into our baser tribal instincts and also the very tempting but ultimately false binary thinking that is so prevalent. "If you are not for [my party], you must be for the [other party]." "A vote for a third party is a vote for the [other party]." These and many others like them are asserted against those of us who will not comply and fully throw our weight behind either major party. It is a cross we bear. (shrug)

But I do not want to get too focused on politics as such. My focus here is in no way to say we should or should not vote for this or that party. I believe everyone reading this is adult enough to form their own judgment on whom to vote for. It is not, I assure you, that I do not have significant criticisms of the major parties, and it is not, even, that I think they are both equally problematic. I simply do not see the good in adding to the "you should vote for my party" noise. 

And to be honest, this is a big reason I am not a fan of the 5NN. It is not because they are not part--even a "pre-eminent" part--of Catholic social teaching. It is that they are hijacked to uncritically support the GOP.

You may scoff at my suggestion that there is a lack of criticism, but in the circles that promote the 5NN, I have yet to see a single criticism of the GOP (or, rarely if at all, Trump). A good example of this is the video I mentioned of a homily from a certain FSSP priest in Maryland. In it, while disclaiming that he was telling anyone whom to vote for, he spoke at length about the many problems of Biden/Harris with nary a criticism of Trump or the GOP. And this is, as I say, par for the course. This good priest is, naturally, relying on the aforesaid binary mentality in our country that, if I clearly cannot choose Biden/Harris, my only choice is to vote Trump/Pence.

If you make this observation (as I have) to a Trump supporter/GOP party member, that person will inevitably fall back on the claim that all of the problems with the GOP are simply matters of prudential judgment (i.e., the "negotiables" in the 5NN concept). But as I hope to show, this is not at all the whole picture. (And I hope everyone will keep in mind that the point here is NOT to tell you not to vote GOP. I promise.)

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #2 Too Much Reduction

Unfortunately for us Catholics, the choice ain't so simple. We are called to learn, value, and uphold the whole of Catholic doctrine. Not only that, we are guided to weigh not only the underlying issue and principles at hand but also how those principles come to bear practically for any given action.

By action, I am including voting, but we should remember these are meant to guide our daily lives, not just how we vote! Judging by the amount of fervor that is expended on elections, particularly the quadrennial presidential election, one would not fault someone for thinking that many Christians only think that their duties with regards to the social doctrine of the Church extend so far as casting a ballot. But I digress..

The Compendium is hundreds of pages long. And it is a compendium, that is, it is meant to be a concise collection of our teachings. It isn't even, in a sense, the full teaching of the Church that is meant to be our guide. But it is most assuredly a good guide. It puts a lot of important meat on the bones, and it also teaches us, very clearly, that many of the political ideas we have been inculcated with from birth, even some cherished American sacred cows, are not as sacred as we might have been led to believe. As true children of the Church, we ought to be teachable and to amend our political opinions accordingly, rather than insist on our own way, clinging stubbornly to political ideals over the truths of the Faith.

Even the bishops' guide is 45 pages long, and you can think of it as a compendium of the Compendium, perhaps, with some extra guidance as applies for our situation in the US today. Given the complexities of life and, especially, how those are encountered at the national or international levels, there are no silver bullets, there are no "perfectly clear" choices. Even if the American Solidarity Party were one of the major parties--and it sets out to explicitly conform its platform to Catholic social doctrine--it is not a given that voting ASP would be a slam dunk for Catholics. 

No party, I repeat, no party has any kind of special guarantee from Christ that they best represent Catholic social doctrine. And so we must, as mature, adult Catholics, do our best to consider all the many important issues and how each party does more or less to promote the common good, as understood through the guidance of the Church's Magisterium--which does actually have the special guarantee from Christ not to lead us into error! This, I have to point out, very much includes the teaching of our Holy Father Francis, as I elaborate on in a recent article.

As Catholics, we should be mature enough to live with the ambiguity inherent in all this. Some principles are crystal clear, but how they are realized and applied in the complexities of life and through national and global systems are anything but simple. Saying this in no way denies the fundamental clarity of the principles themselves. By the way, has anyone looked at the length of the Summa Theologica? It is 3011 pages in the five volume set I have, and it is "only" dealing with faith and morals. It is supposed to have been an "introduction" to theology.

It seems to me that we have to accept that 1) we cannot fully comprehend the complexities of the systems at play in large scale politics and governance, 2) we cannot ever fully predict how a given policy will definitely play out and what repercussions it will have, and 3) few if any of us is able to balance the full social doctrine of the Church against all of these with anything approaching perfection. We need to accept and appreciate these with humility, and that humility ought to guide us and make us less certain and sure that our political choices (and parties) are right. 

That should, as well, give us all a sense of bonhomie with all our fellow citizens. We are all in this boat together! None of us gets it perfectly right, even when we have certain fundamental principles to start from. We all, yes even our political "enemies," are seeking some conception of the good, however imperfectly. We are all fallible humans in need of redemption. Political differences should not be held so strongly for these reasons. There is an almost certain likelihood that any policy, especially at higher levels of government, will not pan out as planned and have very many unintended consequences, many of which are not good. 

As Christians, though, we ought not to despair. We can live with the ambiguity and uncertainty and still make the best decisions we can based on what we know and understand at any given time. We can, and we should. But any time we start getting certain that our party or candidate absolutely 100% has it right or, especially, that any particular candidate is going to realize our principles with any meaningful degree of certainty, we need to step back. That kind of thinking is what leads to all of the sinful polarization and mutual demonization that is so common today. Let's let humility be the key principle we start from and cling to.

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #3 Confusing/Misleading Language

The Church does not really use the language of "negotiable" or "non-negotiable." The problem with using this language is that it is readily converted into, on the one hand, an overly restrictive understanding of the implications of the non-negotiables and, on the other hand, an overly permissive understanding of, well, pretty much any other issue! 

Let me be clear. If you say, "these five are non-negotiable," then you are saying that if a given party does not align with the Catholic teaching on them, then that party must not be supported--it is non negotiable. So let's take abortion for example. The Catholic teaching is that it is only permissible when the abortion is not the end or means in view, but that it may be allowed when the death of the child is a consequence (even a known consequence) of a procedure intended to protect the life of the mother.

Now, if we are truly saying that the Church's teaching on this is literally non-negotiable, then we may not vote for any party based on this alone. (Maybe the ASP, but that's it.) The GOP does not have such an "extreme" view against abortion. They as a rule allow it in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. So again, if we are to use the proposed language of "non-negotiable," then we cannot negotiate with the GOP and say "well, it's okay because you mostly support our view." No, we are not allowed to negotiate!

And while we are here, it is worth noting that the Holy Father has now made capital punishment into one of these "non-negotiables." The Catechism uses the language "inadmissible." So, again, if we were going to be literalists and absolute on such matters, we obviously could not vote for the GOP, which openly supports capital punishment, nor especially Trump, who has reinstated it with actual killings to date at the federal level. 

Clearly, then, we must either be consistent, and not vote for either major party, or we must allow ourselves room to "negotiate." And this "negotiation" is precisely what our bishops actually teach us we must do (#32):

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and "the art of the possible." At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, "limiting the harm done by such a law" and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

We have an obligation to always oppose, but to wrongly translate that into "never negotiate" would, in effect, make achieving the goal impossible. Our bishops have a whole section on prudence and how to reason about applying these principles to our concrete realities. That is what we informed, faithful citizens must do.

So that is the problem with "non-negotiable." The problem with "negotiable" is, as I said, the inverse. It leads into a certain too-easy flexibility on the supposedly negotiable items, to the point of their not actually factoring in at all in our choice of how we vote. We feel free to effectively ignore them. This is contrary to what the Church teaches, as our bishops note (#34 of the same):

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. (emphases mine)

This section clearly contradicts the whole concept of "negotiable" and "non-negotiable." Not only are "non-negotiables" paralyzing in the political sphere we live in, if we take them truly to be such, but the Church through the CDF and our bishops clearly teaches that it is possible to vote for a candidate who favors policy promoting an intrinsically evil act so long as we in no way intend to support that position. This strikes down any notion that, for example, a candidate's admittedly repugnant stance on abortion is completely non-negotiable. They continue, to be even more explicit (#35):

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

And (#36):

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

Speaking of intrinsically evil acts, "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable." (see here) What GOP candidate promotes this teaching? Do they not rather, as a rule, follow and promote the "standard" American view that contraception is just fine and normal? And, can we for a moment pretend that the GOP upholds what the Church teaches on the indissolubility of marriage? Or sex outside of marriage, even? Masturbation? And yet, these all involve intrinsically evil acts, and all parties and nearly all candidates fall short on this measure. Exactly zero of them are campaigning to bring back true "traditional marriage," stopping far, far short of the Church's teaching and implicitly or explicitly promoting such intrinsic evils. 

The purpose here, again, is not in any way to minimize the necessity of our opposition to intrinsically evil acts. Quite the contrary--the Church is very clear on that duty. It is simply to highlight that, contrary to the 5NN concept, when it comes to working for the common good, no single issue or issues always and everywhere invalidate voting for or working with a particular party or candidate to find what seems to us the best way to achieve the common good and to fight against all the very many grave injustices in the world today.

Again, if we were to take an absolute, non-negotiable stance on abortion, we could not even vote for most GOP candidates due to their support of abortion exceptions that are not allowed in Catholic teaching. And so, we may rightly determine to vote for them despite their support for that intrinsically grave evil. Indeed, not every Democrat supports fully unrestricted abortion. So while we can say that the GOP is certainly much preferable in their far more restrictive stance, they all still allow it to some degree.

I am not just being clever with words here nor trying to make some rarified academic point. They really, truly all have serious problems and to varying degrees support policies and law that promote intrinsic evils. We should never pretend that a vote for either of our major parties is free of such problems. We have to determine which has the greatest good that offsets those problems, and that applies when considering both major parties and any other party or candidate. 

Similarly, the admonition that "a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" clearly rules out any possibility for single issue voting for a faithful Catholic (or five issue voting). 

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #4 Devaluing Other Gravely Important Matters

I touched on this above, but it needs to be highlighted further. As a rule, we Republican-leaning Catholics are far too quick to dismiss, wave hands, and claim "prudential judgment" on those things that are not in the 5NN. I can only imagine the ready defensiveness on this is for fear we be seen to lean towards positions more closely associated with the Democratic party. We see this in the massive overreactions to Fratelli Tutti, for example. Pope Francis criticizes unbridled capitalism (in lock step with Catholic social doctrine for over 120 years) and people lose their minds! He's a communist! (That is sarcasm.)

War is a grave evil. Pope Francis teaches compellingly and authoritatively in his role as supreme pastor (Fratelli Tutti, 258): 

We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!

Even admitting the possibility of just war, as Catholics we are called, as a rule and basic stance, to oppose it as invariably leading to grave evils. This is in stark contrast to the hawkish, nationalist stance that the GOP has taken, especially under Trump. He makes no beans about his readiness to use our military might to advance his America First policy. This should be a serious problem for Catholics.

The America First policy itself is hugely problematic from a Catholic principles point of view. It is fundamentally a selfish policy that prioritizes our collective national good over the good of every other nation in the world. We would not tolerate such selfishness on a personal level, nor should we tolerate it on a national level.

Climate change is another area where the GOP, as a rule, is way out of sync with Catholic social doctrine. Pope Francis has repeatedly highlighted for us (from his global vantage point that none of us has) the grave injustices done throughout the world to human beings as a result of our carelessness towards the environment. This is no matter of being a tree hugger or exalting some kind of mother-earth animism. It is about protecting and caring for the most vulnerable among us. 

The destructive effects of how we have been living are observable already even today. I am not talking about abstract concerns about rising temperatures, although those increases do endanger very, very many vulnerable poor people. The impacts on human beings and God's creatures are undeniable. And the GOP's denial, deregulation, pulling out of environmental accords, and the like promote an irresponsible laissez faire attitude, contrary to the careful stewardship we are called to, and the concern for the poor around the globe who suffer as a result of our lackadaisical attitude. 

Treatment of immigrants is another grave area for concern. We must not pretend that there is a dichotomy--completely closed borders or completely open. But not having followed current regulations for immigration does not strip a person of their human dignity. Being an "illegal immigrant" does not make a person subhuman and therefore beyond the scope of our care. 

As Catholics, we know better. The example of the good Samaritan that Pope Francis draws so heavily on in Fratelli Tutti applies, along with all the many corporal works of mercy that are the ancient and enduring tradition of the Church. A nation may have a right to protect its borders, but there are just and unjust ways to do that. The GOP under Trump have moved in the wrong direction and, in general, promote a careless and even hostile and fearful attitude towards those extremely vulnerable persons--the immigrants and refugees--who need our love and care.

Another area of grave concern is how we collectively care for the poorest among us in our own country. The free market does not give a damn about the poor. The increasing disparities in the world and our country between the very rich and the poor should be alarming to us. Policies that disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthy can only go so far towards the good. Again, this is not a binary thing. It is not communism or unbridled capitalism. It is not no taxes for social welfare or complete redistribution of wealth. Too often we reach for reactionary words and a mindset that resists reasonable compromises that would enable us to better serve the poor through our pooled resources.

Yes, prudential judgment does apply, but it applies to all of the concerns that bear on our action in the world and especially to politics and how we vote and the policies we craft. We are not any more free to deny our duty to help the poor than we are free to deny our duty to protect the unborn. Indeed, the two are not unrelated, given the poor disproportionately seek abortions. We are not free to turn a blind eye towards systems of injustice any more than we are free to turn a blind eye towards promoting chastity and the sanctity of marriage. How we achieve all these just and good goals is the matter of prudential judgment and working it out in our political sphere. 

Is There Anything Better Than the 5NN?

The reality and problem with the 5NN concept is that it is not, in point of fact, what the Church teaches us about our duties in the social and political spheres. It is too reductive, too selective, and serves more as a tool of the Republican party than of forming consciences according to the fullness of Catholic social doctrine. It reinforces the already prevalent misconception that as long as we vote pro life (or pro marriage), we're good, and it wrongly releases us from other very grave concerns and obligations. 

We need to realize we are not free at all to be cozy with and uncritically supportive of either major party. I have focused on the GOP here because criticisms of the Democratic party (in such circles as I often find myself in) are aplenty. I see this post as a necessary corrective to urge us all to start thinking more holistically with the Church. We can, despite protestations to the contrary, vote for either major party, given that both support intrinsic evils but both also promote the common good in their respective ways. I do not say that I think they are both equally good, all things considered, but it is by no means an easy choice, depending on what serious issue you consider at a given moment. If we are not struggling with this, we are not doing it right--we are not giving all the serious matters due consideration. Certainly if we think that the 5NN are sufficient to choose, I say we are just being lazy.

We Catholics have to accept our adult responsibility. This means no meme or handy five-point program is sufficient to form our consciences with regards to our social responsibilities, which are in fact the particulars of our duty to love our neighbors as ourselves. If there is any valid reduction of Catholic teaching, it is what Christ gave us in the two greatest commandments. But all of us need to expend more time and energy to form ourselves in the Faith. 

Our bishops' guide is only 45 pages. That is not too much to read and seriously ponder for such matters of import. I'll warrant most of us spend more time watching a Netflix show in one night than it would take to read that. Get started. Go read it, or read it again. I know I will.

And when you are done, consider carving out 10 minutes a day to read through the Compendium. That is, actually, how I managed it. One little bit at a time. You can do it, and you will be better formed for doing so, I guarantee it. Just sincerely pray for the Spirit to help you to keep an open mind and to allow yourself to be formed by the Church rather than our political parties and/or what we may have previously held. If we read it only looking for that things that confirm our thinking, we are wasting our time.

After (or even before) that, go read our Holy Father's Laudato Si and Fratelli Tutti. They both speak to important considerations to keep in mind, are part and parcel of the tradition of the social doctrine of the Church, and they are as pertinent for our times as Rerum Novarum was in its time.

Any and all of these are better than the 5NN to more effectively form our consciences in the Faith for action in the world. I urge us all to dive deep in them!

Peace, my brothers and sisters! Remember the key of humility!

Polarization and the Golden Rule

I’m sure people who think Trump can do no right are gonna see this as after-the-fact justification. Maybe so. OTOH, I agree with the principle of waiting until you have good enough info to speak and act. Too bad he doesn’t apply that standard evenly as is amply evidenced on his Twitter feed.

As I recall, Trump made his “equivocal” statement before the news broke about the car homicide, and at the time, having watched some of the video feeds myself, it seemed that both sides were indeed acting out and inciting each other, which is pretty much par for the course for so-called “peaceful demonstrations” these days.

There have also been many violent and ugly protests (and riots) incited by folks on the left side of the political spectrum, many against Trump himself. This is not tu quoque. I am not excusing what happened. I am indicting both the left and the right for our ongoing extreme polarization and the violence that this leads to.

As I said on Saturday, have said before, and will probably say again, racism is a great evil and a great sin. There is no excuse for it. I am personally disgusted by the behavior and talk of white supremacists, and I abhor and denounce that ideology in all its various pernicious forms.

What I am addressing here is not the particular ideology of the particular latest demonstration-turned-riot. I am addressing the larger issue that we, as Americans, so very many of us, are increasingly becoming incapable of viewing each other as fellow human beings and fellow citizens with whom we may happen to hold significant disagreements.

Instead, we vilify, demonize, and shout down. We refuse to listen and refuse to discuss as rational beings. We imagine we know each others’ hearts, and we rarely question our own. This can only lead us to one end: hate and violence. And that, in itself, only breeds more of the same as recriminations escalate.

We see this in the workplace. We see this in the public square. We see this among friends, and yes even among family. This is a dark, dark path we are going down, far more deleterious than any saber rattling by governmental powers.

But it’s not too late to reverse it. Each one of us can make the effort, no matter how personally offensive someone’s ideas are, to remember that this is indeed another human being we are dealing with and to treat them like we would want to be treated.

There is no doubt that if we stand for anything, someone will take offense and objection to our positions, no matter how right we think we are, no matter how much we think we are ‘on the right side of history’. So it behooves us to engage in the Golden Rule, especially when we disagree and are inclined to see the Other as our enemy.

Those with political power (even in a democracy) will always be tempted to use it to unjustly oppress and suppress others. We have never been immune to this, even in a country founded on liberal ideals, and we are anything but immune to it today. We should not forget our own history, and we must ever be on guard against the temptation to use power—even in the service of arguably good ideals—to treat others as less than human. This includes the power of government and the power of the mob, in whatever form that takes.

We are all, witting or not, members of the government or the mob or both, that is, some society of individual persons who by banding together wield collective power, and so it is on each of us—individually—to resolve to use what power we have to respect the Other and to treat the Other as we would want to be treated.

And Christians, especially, are called to an even higher standard—to LOVE the Other, to seek the good of the Other, even when it doesn’t personally benefit us. We ought to be examplars of how to live at peace with each other, not ever backing down from confronting evil but also never conflating the evil with the person. “Love your enemies...” May God give us the grace to love perfectly.

Proclaim the Word!

Beloved:

Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,

because you know from whom you learned it,

and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures,

which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation

through faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is inspired by God

and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction,

and for training in righteousness,

so that one who belongs to God may be competent,

equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,

who will judge the living and the dead,

and by his appearing and his kingly power:

Proclaim the Word!

be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient;

convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.

(from the second letter of St. Paul to St. Timothy, 3:14-4:2)

Disconnecting from Catholic Social Media

After the latest brouhaha resultant from this post (and the convo before it I mentioned), I have been pushed over the edge. I'm done with Catholic social media.

It's not like this hasn't been long in coming. It seems what passes for the majority of Catholic blogging, and perhaps more so social media, is a sludge of conservative outrage inducing link regurgitating. The echo chamber is in full effect, and it has gotten worse since our new pope has been elected. Now it's not just the broader decadent Western culture that has the watchdogs frothing at the mouth, but apparently the Pope himself is not Catholic enough for them.

Enough already. It is downright embarrassing and, for me, infuriating. It's all just so much gossip.

We conservative Catholics need to stop conflating political ideals with Catholic doctrine, as if the Right has a corner on truth and goodness. We need to stop vilifying those on the other end of the political spectrum. We need to stop overreacting to everything homosexual and abortion-related. We need to stop setting ourselves up in our own personal popedoms. We need to relax about the liturgy. We need to relax about the world's sexual profligacy. We need to relax. Chill out a bit. Take a deep breath and stop wigging out every time something in the world doesn't align with the way we think it should be.

It goes without saying (for me) that I'm not suggesting keeping silent when we should speak. I'm not suggesting not being active in the political process how we should be. I'm not suggesting ignoring or suppressing Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I am by no means suggesting we don't share the Gospel--exactly the contrary!

Look. Either God is in control or he isn't. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that ain't nothing new. The way things used to be ain't as great as we like to pretend it was in our whitewashed memories. Human nature is human nature. It always has been. Mass sinfulness has always been with us; it's just the predominate kinds of sin that change with the passage of time.

Thankfully, God doesn't judge us by the political order and culture we live in; he judges us individually by what we as individuals think, say, and do. If God intended to set up a perfect political party or government, we'd have that. But we don't, and it's not our job to try to set it up.

What we do have is the Truth. What we have are the Sacraments. What we have is each other. Real people whom we are called to truly love, even if we don't agree with them. 

And don't tell me about "speaking the truth in love." Hogwash. The Truth is easily abused and can be wielded as effectively to drive people away from God as it can to guide them to Him. The Truth is also understood incompletely, by us. It is often miscommunicated, by us. It is also often misunderstood, and we are responsible to minimize that--we must be sensitive to where people are and adjust when and how we share the Gospel with them. 

And this extends beyond social media (it just seems exacerbated by it, as are most things online, where it's so easy to reduce people in your head to mere ideas and words, stripping them of the dignity and love they deserve from us). My own dear lay Dominicans were recently discussing a situation where one of them found out that someone they have do some handyman work is gay--who was "married" recently. Apparently this was the source of great anguish--should she keep paying him to do a job? What if he brings up his gayness?? "You have to share the truth [in love] with him," says someone. 

Really?!? Have we become so oversensitized to this issue that it becomes a major personal crisis to find out that someone you have hired to do a job that has absolutely zero to do with their sexuality is gay? Are we really obligated to foist our opinion of their life choices on them uninvited? Must we all shake our heads and tut tut about it? Would we have the same crisis if, say, we found out that they were a terrible gossip or an inveterate liar? Somehow I doubt it, especially if their sin was also one we personally struggle with.

And that's the crux of it. If this behavior is not the very definition of what Jesus was counseling against in Matthew 7, I don't know what is. All this outrage-inducing "socializing" does is keep our focus on others' sins and errors rather than our own, much less does it help us to share the Good News. I'd say the Devil is pretty pleased with the state of Catholic social media right now. Pretending for a moment that this is "New Evangelization" is utter self-deception.

Sharing the Gospel is the key. It's not good enough to say something is a sin. That's sharing the Truth incompletely. That, at its best, is ethics. Being a "good person" doesn't get anyone to heaven. What we really need to share is not "you are living in sin" but "Christ can transform your life, give you joy and give you peace." That's the message. That's the focus. Sin is just an opportunity for us to receive God's grace. We need to share that the mercy and grace of God is greater than all our sins put together. 

We need to stand with our fellow sinners, not so as to condone sin but rather in recognition that we are all sinners, that we all fail, that we all utterly need the grace of God. If we are not truly with them, then we are not truly loving them. Compassion is the word. Suffering with others. Us versus them is not authentic love. Pointing out sin is not authentic love. It is pride masquerading as love.

And, so, for myself, all this outrage-rich social media is a very near occasion to sin (not to mention a waste of time and talent), because I am repeatedly tempted to hold these brothers and sisters in disdain, because I myself become preoccupied with their sins rather than my own, and so, give into pride. 

Therefore, I am cutting off that aspect of my life rather than continuing to fall into sin. I have deleted circles. I have unliked pages on FB. I will continue to cull these things from my life as they come up. As I slowly rebuild my Catholic social connections, I will use this as a bar: Does this person refrain from fostering outrage and indulging in judging and condemning others? Does this person share things that build people up? Does this person appear to be truly concerned with sharing the Gospel and will they help me to? 

Sheltering, Brainwashing, Meh

My atheist colleague at work today said something interesting today. He said, "I have a beef. I don't know how they do things these days, but when I was growing up, they acted like there were only Catholics. And where I grew up, it was very monoculture--bunch of white French Canadians. It wasn't until I grew up that I started hearing about this Jewish thing, then that Hindu thing, and so on, all these other things. Doesn't seem right to me to do that to kids..."

Okay, so it's not an exact quote, but that's the basic gist of it. The beef, I guess, is another way of stating the common atheist complaint that religious parents brainwash their children. I'm sure that some do, to an extent, though I don't agree with the characterization of teaching your children your beliefs, in itself, as brainwashing (at all).

In any case, I'm not commenting on his particular experience because I just don't know, but it does highlight a potential problem for religious parents (and religious educators). The problem is not so much that we need to worry about brainwashing, per se, but rather that we need to guard against leaving our children so ill equipped that when they do get more exposure to the broader world and its many different philosophies and ideologies. We need to ensure that they have enough grounding in the faith that they are not swept away in whatever wind happens to catch their sails.

If my colleague had received a better religious education, one that included awareness of other points of view, along with help to think critically about them, as well as understand the criticisms of his own faith and the defenses of those criticisms, he would have been better prepared and, I dare say, might still be Catholic. That's not to say that no one who well understands the Catholic faith would turn to atheism; however, I am saying that most people who turn away from the faith do so based largely on misconceptions or just some bad experience/ill will towards someone they perceive to be an exemplar of those who follow the faith.

We can only do so much about the latter--try to be good exemplars ourselves; however, we can and should minimize people leaving the faith due simply to being poorly prepared or misinformed. This doesn't mean we treat all viewpoints as equally valid, nor that we don't teach our children the faith, nor that we expose them unnecessarily before they are ready, but sheltering only goes so far.

At the end of the day, our children are their own selves. They will be responsible for the free choices that they make, and just like we work to prepare them academically, socially, etc., we need to prepare them philosophically and theologically. We can't do this by pretending that other viewpoints don't exist or by shying away from hard questions and providing slippery easy answers that gloss over difficulties. They will face these at some point, and if we don't help prepare them, we are at the very least in part responsible.

Let Priests Be Priests

Continuing on my post yesterday on "we're doing it wrong," in which a lot of my suggestions revolved around the priests, our pastors, one of my priest friends on G+ (who shall remain unnamed until he tells me otherwise), said this:

Lay people, please bring this post to your pastor and volunteer to help as you can. It's too easy for priests to get into maintenance mode, worrying about keeping the lights on and the heat running and the roof from falling in and ... Then they see the "new evangelization" and think, "O Lord, another thing I need to worry about?", forgetting that evangelization and equipping the laity is their primary role.

As a priest, it's easy for us to feel overwhelmed and feel like there's so much that needs to be done, but little to no help to do it. We need lay people to step up and take the reins.

This speaks to one of my speculations--being intimidated at the effort involved. Now, I happen to know this particular priest is not one to shy away from challenging his parishioners, but the sentiment he expressed is important listen to as laity.

A few folks on G+ were taking me to task (in a friendly way) for essentially putting it all on the priests. Now, I want to be clear, I think the priests and bishops do have the leading, primary role in making changes like the ones suggested. I think their calling is precisely to lead us laity towards God, to strengthen us for our own sanctification, and to equip us for our own lay apostolate, our own evangelization. We have a crucial role in the evangelization of the world--it's not "Father's job" to do that on his own. We, by nature of being in the world all the time and by being so many, have much more opportunities for evangelization than Father ever can have, and we are all called to share the Good News.

So what we laity need to do is to support priests in what they need to do. We need to help priests be priests, and part of that is taking care of the other stuff that is not essentially priestly. It's not right for Father to feel so pooped and overwhelmed that he feels he can't perform his primary priestly ministry. That is something we can help with.  Help them to help us.

The Church is Doing It Wrong

One of the things you learn in learning to design professionally is that often how you frame the problem is as important as trying to solve the problem. Case in point. And lest anyone think this is a strictly Catholic problem.

What am I saying? I'm saying that framing the problem as "how can we grow the Church?" is doing it wrong, that framing it as "what can we do to keep people from leaving" is doing it wrong, and that examining polls about what people think about the Church and using that to inform what we do is doing it wrong.

What do you get when you frame it this way? You get anxious wringing of hands. You get "programs" and "initiatives." You get more fish fries, carnivals, spaghetti dinners, and pancake breakfasts. You get a watering down of doctrine on both faith and morals, homilies that are nothing more than banal, earthy moralisms. You get artificial attempts at being hip and relevant that those who are hip find repulsive and irrelevant. In short, you get everything but the Gospel.

So how should we frame the problem? The answer is in the name of the popular term "new evangelization." No, it's not the "new" part ("renewed" would be more apropos in this context); it's the "evangelization" part. The way to frame the problem is "how can we best share the Good News?"

And the answer is the same today as it was for the Apostles. First, we must ourselves repent and believe. Second, avail ourselves of the sacraments. Third, go out into all the world. In other words, authentically follow Christ and show others how to do the same.

Parishes should be focusing on how they can best celebrate the sacraments. Parish priests should ask themselves, "How can I celebrate the Eucharist fully faithfully, authentically, in the richest way possible?" The answer is not to get creative or worry about incorporating pop music or other profane activities (I'm looking at you, Austria). On the contrary, work to restore a sense of the sacred, transcendent, otherness; treat it as if we were truly encountering God because, ya know, we are. Foster Eucharistic Adoration.

Ask, "How can I make confession more convenient for my parishioners?" Show them how important it is by making it a crucial, daily part of parish life, not a Saturday afterthought. If you're in the confessional and nobody comes--that's okay. Take that time to pray. It's a win either way, but people will come.

Ask, "How can I teach the faith more authentically in my homilies?" Preaching should challenge people to grow in the faith, not be complacent in it. It should equip parishioners to direct their own lives towards God and also to be able to explain it to others. It's okay if they don't get it all right away.

Ask, "How can I ensure parishioners are prepared for the other sacraments?" Marriage--be strict; be faithful. Don't smooth over the harder teachings; you're not doing anybody any favors by doing that. Baptism--teach what baptism really is all about; reinforce how important it is to do it ASAP, not when Aunt Bertha can make it in six months later. Ditch the feel-good 80s infomovies. First communion and confirmation: for the love of all that is holy, make religious education free. And on that subject, make sure your teachers are orthodox. Challenge the kids, too. Again, it's okay if they don't get it all right away--mystery is a good thing. Treat these things seriously, like they are real means of grace and not social events.

People--complacent, lukewarm people--are going to be bothered by this. "But Father..." will be heard a lot. People may even threaten to leave. And then do it. That's OK. They did that to Jesus as well. The Gospel is not a popularity contest. It is not a way to reassure everyone that they're okay and good being however they want to be. It is demanding. It is the narrow way.

So all these suggestions are related to steps one and two--getting the house in order. Out of this will grow, quite naturally and authentically, evangelism, that is, the apostolate of the laity. Educate the laity in their responsibility for evangelization; think about how to better equip them (e.g., apologetics courses, Bible studies, and evangelism practice) and support them in it.

I'm not saying that priests don't think about these things. I'm not pretending any of this is novel (quite the contrary). But there does seem to be a kind of forgetting, or maybe a thinking as if this is somehow not enough. And so the focus shifts off the essentials and onto all these other attempts at "keeping" people and "growing" the church, instead of keeping a firm hold on Christ and growing the faith.

I think most priests know they need to do this, but they're held back. Maybe they're afraid of offending their parishioners. Maybe they recognize what a sea change in parish culture this would be. Maybe they're just intimidated by the effort it implies. That's why those of us parishioners who understand this is the way things need to be should encourage and support our pastors in these efforts. But it needs doing regardless.

What is Wrong with Catholicism Today

This is everything that's wrong with Catholicism today. People who so fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church. People who so fundamentally lack faith. People who are so utterly enamored of this world and the opinions of men.

Anyone who judges the state of the Church, or the effectiveness of a papacy, by "the news" reported about it is completely lost.

"Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind." - St. Paul, Letter to the Romans

The problems in the Church are not caused by the people who actually understand, believe, and follow the doctrine of the faith. The problems come from those who don't understand, who don't believe, and who fail to practice it. That is true whether they are clergy or laity.

What laity who put on holier than thou airs towards the clergy seem to fail to realize is that the clergy who fail come from their ranks. None of us is born a priest. We are all born lay. Bad priests were bad laymen first. Those who are the most judgmental, anticlerical laity are themselves faithless laypersons. They don't realize that they are two peas in a pod with faithless priests they so excoriate.

Being a priest doesn't make a faithless person faithful, nor does it make a good person bad. By the same token, being lay doesn't make you inherently more holy or wise or trustworthy than clergy. The popular notion that having more lay government of the Church is the solution to corruption in the Church is demonstrably flawed, even ludicrous. Look around you. Do you see any corruption in civil governments around the world? I thought so.

Priest and lay, what we need in the Church are more people who are more faithful, people who do as St. Paul instructed as quoted above. Here is more of that passage:

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. 

I suggest you read more. It's very pertinent. Faithful priests and faithful laypeople--we are all part of the same body of Christ but with different callings and gifts.

I'll further say, along with St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians, "I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you." You can't just quit the faith. That's not the way it works. If you think you can just take it off for a while and put it back on when you feel the Church better suits you, I have some news for you: you don't have faith. You faithless people--you who wear Catholicism like it's a robe to be taken off and put on again when its convenient, when it appeals to you, when the Church is respected and admired by the world and in the news--you are the problem with the Church.

The good news is that you can help fix it. No, not by railing against the Church and the clergy. Nope. You just need to get to confession. Get on your knees. Humbly repent and ask God to restore your faith. He will, and then you'll be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Update 6 Mar 2013: Piers Morgan--another example of what's wrong with the Catholic Church today.

Let's Teach the Politicians How It's Done

I'm involved in an interesting yet distressing dialog (political in nature). And it occurs to me how far we are, as a nation, from being able to find any kind of common ground. I mean, if we can't even agree on the nature and purpose of dialectic, much less dialectic with a view to political practicalities and (oh my!) compromise, how can we ever hope to ever have anything but the unfortunate deadlock and lack of meaningful progress out of the political mire we find ourselves in today.

Let me be clear--both sides (and shades in between) are at fault on this. I am just as put off when I see blatant, dishonest vilification of Obama as when I see it of, say, Ryan.

I get that politicians have vested interests in not engaging in true dialectic. It seems inherent to the job, in being an ideologue or a demagogue who gets paid by being elected by the masses. But what excuse do the rest of us have?  Why is it that discussing politics (or religion) is seen as off limits? What's more important than these things, in society? 

We expect our politicians to fix this, but they simply reflect our own unwillingness to engage in reasoned, polite (wonder where that word comes from??) dialogue towards an end of finding some common ground and some ways that we can find practicable compromises to move forward.  At the very least, we can learn to have a healthy respect for one another and treat each other as human beings with dignity, instead of dishonestly caricaturing and vilifying one another in hopes of scoring some imagined rhetorical points (or worse, winning someone over through these things).

We have to live with each other, for goodness sake! What is our other option? Civil war? Again?  It's not unimaginable, you know... deadlock, entrechment, polemics, refusal of dialogue, refusal to see the other as a reasonable person capable of dialogue, a dispersoning of the other, conflating their ideas (which you may rightly abhor) with them as a person, a human being, and treating them accordingly.  Those are all precursors to war, genocide, and other forms of social atrocity.

We must fix this. But it won't start with the politicians. We can't demand that our politicians take the lead--their job is, essentially, to reflect us, to represent us. And by God, they are! We are the ones that need to change. We, each one of us, is responsible to stop this downward spiral. We must re-learn how to have polite discourse; we must stop dishonestly caricaturing each other. We must learn to listen, to see the good in the other, and to use that as the starting point for our dialogue.

Only after we change will our politicians have incentive to change their ways. Let's show them how it's done!


P.S. For the believers among us, I encourage you to consider offering this prayer before engaging in dialogue with others. And by all means, pray for our country as well, but let's not lose sight of our own failings in this area before addressing others.  All in humility.

Evangelical Shouldn't Be a Qualifier

A Christian cannot know the Scriptures and not be evangelical.

Agree?

Slaves of the Zeitgeist

A friend of mine posted this diagram that tries to map named political groupings with their respective views on what goods/services that government should provide.

What I find fascinating is that what would be considered very conservative today was considered to be liberal ("classical liberalism") back in the early days of the US. This comes at an interesting time for me because I've been listening to a book called Sarum, which is a long historical fiction that traces a history of Sarum in England from hunter-gatherer up to very recent. One of the threads you see, especially starting in the High Middle Ages, is the recurring theme of the rights of the common man.

The author does a pretty good job of showing the conflicts throughout the succeeding periods between the conservative and liberal viewpoints, and I don't know if it's intentional or not, but it also illustrates that what is liberal in one age becomes assumed/commonplace/even conservative in another. In each age you see people who are dyed in the wool conservatives and those who are seen as liberals/radicals.

It's curious to me because I think it's worth asking ourselves if we shouldn't keep this in mind when forming our own views on things. The dialog in the US is often framed as conservatives want to go back to the way things were/as intended by the founding fathers. It's a sort of primitivism, often underpinned by a quite romanticized view of the way things were.

Even within my parents' own generation, there is sometimes a sense that the 50s were some kind of golden age in America, but as Frau Dr. Ross (my German professor in college) pointed out once--things were not so peachy keen back then if you were, say, black or a woman. The recent movie "The Help" really drives this home--I strongly recommend it for that reason.

Similarly, we often romanticize the times of the founding fathers, but things were not peachy keen then, either. It's not an unfair criticism to point out that many of them, including Jefferson, were slave holders. No doubt most contemporary women would be scandalized by their views on women. I'm not suggesting we anachronistically judge them as morally inferior; in fact, quite the opposite--the reason people have different views on these things today is often not due to individual moral consideration/superiority but rather that we are inescapably products of our ages. These guys were the radicals, the liberals of their age and made their ideals into reality in large part--very admirable.

What I am thinking, though, is that we probably should avoid a romantic primitivism when forming our ideas on what society and government should look like today. We're in quite a different context. A lot has changed. No doubt some of this is for the better and some for the worse. Development of social ideas as related to government is called for as society changes, and so I think it's rather naive to hold to a classical liberal view (now "paleo-conservative" according to the diagram above). Or to even go further back to something akin to feudalism (voluntarism/libertarianism). Things change for a reason, often for good reasons.

Another interesting consideration I picked up from Sarum is that in Queen Elizabeth I's reign, almost 500 years ago, even then they saw that relying purely on private and church charity was insufficient to help the poor. This was in a time when people in society, as a rule, grew up with a strong Christian ethic (unlike today in the US) and when the church was actually supported/intertwined with the state. In other words, before her time they had what many conservatives today advocate for--getting the government out of helping the poor--but it just wasn't working then, so why should it work now? I mention this because while in theory I am inclined towards taking care of the poor without relying on the government, I've often wondered if it would be feasible, especially today in our me-me-me society that lacks the strong pro-poor Christian ethic. And this historical anecdote is evidence that it probably wouldn't.

It seems to me that we, especially Christians--especially Catholic Christians--need to rethink how we frame our views about government. I would suggest again (as have others) that it is inappropriate as a faithful Christian to align with the Democrat or Republican parties. We need to keep in mind that a Christian worldview cannot be contained within any political party--because the Christian worldview by its very nature transcends temporal concerns, but even more so because with our basic two choices (ignoring fringe parties), each party has positions that diverge widely from the honest Christian view.

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that the designations of conservative and liberal are not good or bad in themselves, and that they are not only time dependent, in terms of whether or not they align with Christian views, but they are also issue-dependent, which has to be contextualized by time and culture. We should not go along as mindless drones, slaves to our zeitgeist, so that we become blind to the good in those we see as Them and oblivious to the evil in those we see as Us.

Our discernment of what is the right on any given issue must not be whether it is held by the group labeled with Conservative or Liberal, Right or Left, Republican or Democrat--we must resist the politicians and pundits' simplistic categories (in politics or even within Catholicism). Our discernment must be based on whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is charitable, whatever is full of grace. We should ally with those in whatever group or party that aligns with that discernment, without being subsumed into or becoming subservient to those groups.

Above all, let us not forget our calling to conform our own lives to Christ, that we are but sojourners here, pilgrims and citizens of heaven, and so to act in joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, gentleness, and above all charity towards our fellow wayfarers.

In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world. (Jn 16:33)

Irresponsible Journalism

This is just reprehensible and irresponsible journalism. I agree that Rick Santorum is not stating the case as clearly as it could be (or in a sympathetic way), but he is vocalizing things that a large percentage of Americans think. The claim that he is not mainstream should be qualified as not mainstream media.

Let's look at the controversial issues:

• education: personally, I think this is more politicking on both sides than any real disagreement, but maybe not. Rick is not anti-higher education; President Obama is not a snob for advocating for higher ed. Everybody knows that not all jobs require the same level of education and that all people are not the same in terms of their interests and capabilities. We just need to help people realize their potential regardless.
• marriage: well, polls show that the majority of Americans think marriage should be defined between a man and a woman, and last count I saw it was some 31-6 states that had voted along those lines; hardly an "extremist" perspective. Oh yeah, and our current President said he thinks this, too.
• pre/extramarital sex: most everyone agrees that affairs/cheating on your spouse is bad; teen pregnancy is generally agreed to be undesirable; STDs, also bad. Abstinence outside of and fidelity within marriage are the only sure ways to protect against these evils, and there are plenty of Americans, especially parents, who agree with that. This is hardly an extremist position.
• role of women: Cohen makes note of this in passing, as if there is something substantive, but there isn't. I suspect Cohen is projecting his bigoted stereotypes of devout Catholics ("barefoot and pregnant") onto Rick rather than actually understanding Rick's position on women. In fact, just saying "role of women" is telling about Cohen's perception; what if you said, "role of men"? Seems to me that talking about the "role of women" is inherently sexist, as if you could just sum up what women bring to the societal table in a neat little package any more than you can for men..
• contraception: we can agree that Rick's (and my) view of contraception is not mainstream, but that doesn't make us extremists. If we use percentages to determine extremism, then all homosexuals would have to be classified as extremists simply because there aren't that many of them. But I hope we all agree that this would be wrong. Rick has explicitly said that he would not try to impose his views on contraception. But he should have the right to speak about his views on it just as much as Michelle Obama has the right to speak on her views on health and President Obama share his views on the environment or, indeed, women's health.  But unlike the President, Rick is not going to force all Americans to pay for his views or violate their consciences.

There is a strong current (and has been since at least Kennedy's time), especially in court decisions but also in common culture, to make religion purely a private matter. This is not a "conservative trope" disconnected from reality. In more recent years, this has turned into outright hostility towards religion, especially Christianity, in the public square. The media backlash against Santorum is enough evidence in itself that this is the case.

These more recent societal tendencies are purely secularist. And it is deceptive to pretend that the secularist agenda is neutral or fair or even American. It is intolerance personified. "Absolutely no religion in the public square" is the mantra.  The neologism of "separation of church and state," not found anywhere in the Constitution, has become the cultural presumption.

What Rick, Newt, and many others of faith are saying is that religion is not a purely private matter. It's not just a hobby we practice on the weekends. It is part of our identity, and it is a big part of what motivates us toward the common good and how we view the world. The Constitution guarantees us a right to "free exercise" (words actually in the Constitution), and that includes more than going to services on the weekends.

We don't want to establish our religion as the national state religion; we don't want to persecute those who disagree with us. We're not out to impose our religion on anyone. But just as the secularist works within the democratic system to realize his ideals on the common good, so do we. We should be able to talk freely about our religion and how it motivates us and impacts our thinking, without being branded extremist. We should even be able to offer religious reasoning in favor of public policy. People don't have to agree with us, but the open hostility and virulent, hateful character attacks that result when we do today are unacceptable and wrong.

We--people of faith--are the vast majority in America. We need to stand up for ourselves and stop buying into this false secularlist ideal of total separation of church and state, that the two are inimical to each other, that we can't pray, can't talk about, and can't show our religious beliefs in the public square. We've let it go on for too long; we've let the secularlists bully us into silence and the stripping the public square. It's time to stand up for our Constitutional--indeed our basic human--right to be people of faith and not be ashamed of it.

It is normal to be a person of faith.

It is good to be a person of faith.

It is good and normal to let your faith motivate you towards the common good and to tell others why and how it does.

Don't let irresponsible journalists, media figures, or anyone else tell you otherwise, and not only that, we should call them out on it when they do.

On Social Justice and Faith

Day two of my blog a day for Lent, and I'm feeling a bit zoned out due to this darn cold. Anyways, every so often, it occurs to me that in Catholic circles we seem to have this unhealthy divide between what you might call "social justice" Catholics and, well, let's say "dogmatic" Catholics.

Social justice Catholics are those who tend to put their focus on the here and now, the earthy concerns we have. As such, they tend to be the majority because I think most people just aren't that into theology per se but are rather mostly concerned with "living life"; you could say, they are concerned with theology as applied to worldly matters.  Put another way, they are the Marthas--concerned with making sure people get fed, have clothes, have a living wage, health care, and so on. 

On the other hand, dogmatic Catholics are those who revel in the doctrine of the Faith. They think a good homily is one in which the nature of the Trinity is explored, while homilies that deal with common sense morality are banal. They tend to be the ones who advocate for Eucharistic Adoration, communion on the tongue, personal sin, and in general the intellectual and spiritual aspects of the faith. These are the Marys, and they are concerned with making sure people know the Truth, that they believe it, and that they tend to their eternal souls.

As in Scripture when Martha reproached Mary for "doing nothing" in sitting at the feet of the Lord, it's not uncommon for the Marthas of our day to express similar sentiments about the Marys--they don't do enough, all they care about is "sitting in church" and "being religious."  But as we see, Jesus told Martha, "you are anxious about many things but there is need of only one thing, and Mary has chosen the better part." This is often interpreted as an indication of the importance our Lord put on spiritual-intellectual things--sitting at the feet of the Master and listening to him, and that it is "the better part" can seem somewhat scandalous to our common sensibilities, especially in our contemporary materialistic culture.

On the other hand, there are plenty of indications that while the spiritual-intellectual concerns are better and more important, we cannot forsake the physical here and now, particularly not the here and now needs of those who cannot care for themselves. In St. Matthew's Gospel, chapter 25, our Lord tells us that those who neglect caring for "the least of these" will have no part in his Kingdom.  St. James tells us clearly that faith without works is dead. It is obvious that Christians who care only for the spiritual-intellectual life are missing something crucial.  

We all have our predispositions. We have different gifts and talents. We have different vocations.  But we need to remember that, as St. Paul told us, we are all members of the Body of Christ. The hand can't say to the foot, "we have no need of you." We should, rather, be thankful for each other because together we work to build up the Body of Christ in a way that none of us could do it on our own.

Similarly, in our own lives, we need to be mindful that we cannot become too lopsided. If we are inclined to be Marthas, we need to put extra effort into understanding the doctrines of the Faith, maybe making extra effort to make it to Adoration, read a theological book, pray a bit more, listen to our bishops a bit more.  If we are inclined to be Marys, we need to make time to participate more in corporal works of mercy, think more realistically and concretely about how to help "the least of these," and act on that. 

We all need to realize that the intellectual-spiritual nature is indeed more important ("better"). We need to realize that we must love God first, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and tend to the care of our immortal souls, but we must also not let that turn us in on ourselves--we must love our neighbor as ourselves, enliven our faith with works of charity, both with spiritual as well as corporal works of mercy. We cannot neglect social justice but neither can we neglect the dogmas of our Faith. (We should not let politics/party affiliation cause us to lose sight of the Faith--in the US no one party has a corner on the Faith.)  Just as faith without works is dead, so are our works ultimately worthless if we believe not in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. 

And truly, as we come to understand the Faith more, the more we will be led to love, for it is not a common altruistic motivation that drives us to help those in need, but rather we come to see that our love for God and our love for our neighbor are essentially one and the same--that we love our neighbor in God and because of God. Our social justice cannot be considered apart from our dogmas on the nature of God, our relationship to him, and personal holiness, for it is out of these that our doctrines on social justice flow.  Nor can we neglect social justice on the pretense that we are focused on the spiritual-intellectual truths of the faith. The two flow from the One.

Yes, We Really Do Think Contraception is Immoral

UPDATE (7 Feb at 7:00p): This is a nice roundup of both the reasons and related resources:  Six Things Everyone Should Know About the Obama Mandate

UPDATE (22 Jan at 8:02p): This is a scathing article by liberal Catholic (i.e., he doesn't agree with the Catholic position here), Michael Sean Winters. He sees the problem with the HHS mandate, too, and it's not because he's defending the Catholic position on contraception (neither am I here), but because he sees it for what it is--an attack on religious liberty.

---

This morning before I got up and got to shoveling snow, I came across this bulletin from the USCCB about their intent to continue fighting the contraception mandate by the HHS. I tweeted it, saying I don't get why Barack Obama hates freedom of religion, noting how he is the most anti-First Amendment president in history. I say this because this is only one case where his administration has been fighting against it.  Some others, for example: here, here, here, here, and here.  These are just the ones I know about, and it's not like I watch this stuff full time.

I have had a few friends first question how this impinges on religious freedom and second why it matters (or rather, they feel it's not important).

1) First, whether or not you agree with us on the morality of contraception (we can set that discussion aside for now), let's at least acknowledge that the settled--by Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, confirmed in the Church's universal catechism (2366-72), by Pope John Paul II in his great encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and reiterated innumerable times by our own bishops--Catholic position on the matter is that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. In other words, our religion clearly and unequivocally teaches that artificial contraception is immoral. (And add to this that some of the regulated contraception is known to be abortifacient, so this is also about abortion, another thing clearly immoral in Catholic doctrine.)

2) Now let us also agree that the new regulation says that Catholic organizations must provide artificial contraception in their health plans.

3) Given 1 and 2, what this boils down to is the government forcing a religious organization to fund something that is directly opposed to its own belief system. This is patently unconstitutional, a clear violation of the free exercise of religion.  Free exercise includes not being forced to do things that your religion says are immoral.  This article also deals with some of the finer points involved.


The violation of free exercise is pretty clear to me. The only thing I can figure is that those who don't see the mandate as a problem can't believe that we really think artificial contraception is a moral evil. I understand why this is hard to believe in our culture, but hopefully if you glance at some of the links above, you'll see that, yes, we really do think contraception is immoral, notwithstanding the fact that many Catholics choose to ignore this clear doctrine.

For my wife and I, as converts, this was a difficult one to come around to, and it was in part a reason we shied away initially from becoming Catholic, even though we were pretty convinced we should.  You see, we think that if we profess to believe something, we should act accordingly, even when it is difficult, and so we knew that if we were going to become Catholic that not using artificial birth control is part of it.  (Of course, that puts it negatively--the reasons artificial contraception is not to be used are derived from a much more positive, holistic, and healthy view of sexuality than what our contemporary culture offers.) It was in fact Evangelium Vitae that helped me to come around--because it situates this question in the broader Catholic understanding of the dignity of life.


But I digress, the point is that whether or not you agree with the Catholic religion's position on artificial contraception, it is a real moral, religious doctrine, just as much as that which says "thou shalt not kill." And forcing Catholics--including Catholic organizations who help non-Catholics--to participate in something we believe to be immoral precludes our free exercise of our religion. It's as simple as that.

A while back, I was pointing out other infringements on religious liberty, ones that are forcing overwhelmingly good social services out of business (e.g., here and here--same has been happening in the UK). The defense of this kind of stuff says, basically, it's not a violation of free exercise--we can always just, essentially, not help people. What kind of a choice is that? Not to mention, our religion also explicitly teaches us to care for the poor, the orphan, and others--so we are in effect being prevented from doing that in these cases. How many unfortunates are we putting at risk due to these ideologically motivated attacks on religious freedom? A lot--Catholic charitable organizations serve more people than any other in the world.

This is also important because it goes to the core of who we are as a country. You may not see this particular issue as important to yourself, but it is one among other increasing impingements on this first American liberty. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. All Americans should be concerned about this. Today it's artificial contraception. What will it be tomorrow? How many times must our freedoms be denied before you take action? Will it be too late then?

Anonymity Means No Accountability

I am trying to be generous and believe that people who say that they want to remain anonymous online because they have "no desire of notoriety or recognition."  I really am. The same topic came up when people started joining Google+ recently, and some folks I am connected with were rubbed the wrong way by Google's insistence on "real names." The loophole for those folks was to just make a more believable pseudonym. :-/

My main objection to this, especially in this online world, is that anonymity means no accountability. You can publicly attack others and impugn their character, orthodoxy, whatever. You can do real damage to them. You can misrepresent truth (intentionally or not), such as Catholic doctrine. You can mislead others as to your identity (and by that, I mean more than just name). You can be a total misanthrope, be hateful, spiteful, and mean. All without any personal accountability.

How unjust is it for anonymous bloggers to tell bishops, for instance, that the bishops need to "stand up for the faith" and "have some backbone," when they don't even have the backbone to identify themselves? How much more when they make sweeping statements impugning the orthodoxy and charity of vast swaths of our bishops today?

When I'm feeling generous (especially with some of these folks I consider friends), I want to believe the stated good intentions. But when I'm feeling less so, it's hard to swallow, especially when I see examples of such vitriol from anonymous bloggers--because it's just too convenient to be anonymous online. You have nothing on the line, no accountability.

So for all those--especially purportedly Catholic (although who could verify it?)--online personalities who proclaim humility in anonymity (or whatever other personal concerns you have), I urge you to search your heart again. Is there any hint of fear that you could be held to account for what you write?  Even if there's not--especially if there is not--you should reconsider because the potential evil and harm to others (through malice or inculpable error) far outweighs the potential danger to yourself, your humility or privacy. Is it not, in fact, an act of charity to do so? To take risk to yourself out of concern for others?  I think our Lord would say so--"no greater love has a man than that he lay down his life for another."

If you can't take that risk and accountability, I'd humbly suggest that perhaps it would be better to not blog, comment, tweet--whatever--online at all.

Speaking of Abominations

Some Christians who have personal problems with homosexuality are all too eager to quote Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. (NAB)

They might shiver with self-righteous titillation as they roll that last word around on their tongue. What they seem to not realize is that it's not the only thing that Holy Scripture presents to us as an abomination. Consider the following:

There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to evil, The false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19, NAB)

So haughty eyes (pride) and lying are also an abomination, as well as troublemaking.. Consider also:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NAB)

See how heterosexual adulterers and fornicators (i.e., those having sex outside of marriage) are grouped along with "sodomites" as well as thieves, the greedy, drunks, slanderers, and, in general, the unjust? Or:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21, NAB)

What? No mention of homosexuality in this list, but it does include simple impurity? hatreds? (By the way, what does abomination mean? Look it up.) Outrage? Acts of selfishness? Any kind of immorality?? That seems a bit harsh, no?

Well, yeah, it would be harsh were it not for the grace of God freely given to us through Jesus Christ, which is the real message of the Gospel. As St. Paul said elsewhere, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," but he immediately goes on to say, "they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-4) Likewise, the passage from 1 Cor above immediately continues, "That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed [in baptism], you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." And the passage from Galatians goes on to list the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control--these are built up in us by the Holy Spirit as we cooperate with the grace of God!

The message of the Gospel--the Good News--is that we can have hope, despite how utterly screwed up we are. It's not a matter of tritely saying "hate the sin; love the sinner." No, if we hate anything, it is all sin, and not because we find it personally distasteful but because we recognize that it pulls us away from our One True End, that is, it is a disorder.

You see, we are rightly and naturally ordered toward God--our End, our Goal--and all sin is by definition that which draws us away, that is, orders us in a direction away from Him. When the Catholic Catechism speaks of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered, this is what it means. In much the same way, it speaks of masturbation as a grave disorder, I might add.

The Catechism goes on to say that "Every sign of unjust discrimination in [homosexuals'] regard must be avoided," which is what I'm driving at here: If you condemn homosexual acts, you should in the same breath condemn selfish acts in general as St. Paul does, which includes any sexual acts that are not ordered towards procreation within the context of marriage. There is no room for special/more intense condemnation of homosexual acts in a rightly considered view of human sin.

But more importantly, Christians need to shift their energies from condemnation, disgust, or even hate and instead invest their energies in exhortation, compassion, and, indeed, charity. Yes, we do need to defend marriage, but frankly, that defense needs to be more encompassing and holistic--towards eliminating cohabitation before marriage, supporting greater fidelity within marriage, supporting people in natural family planning, working to reduce divorce, and generally working to better promote a holistic, positive understanding of human sexuality whose goal is to make people happier and healthier in this life as well as properly ordered toward eternal life with God. (The two go hand in hand.)

A defense of marriage that focuses exclusively on preventing the civil recognition of homosexual unions as "marriage" is almost certainly doomed to fail in the long run, and in the short run, it distorts the Christian Gospel and offers a terribly negative, lopsided, unattractive, and unhealthy view of the essentially positive Christian understanding of sex (and life in general!).