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!

We're Not Anti Choice and They're Not Pro Abortion

I know it is preposterously optimistic to hope that people on the different sides of the abortion debate can ever work together to end abortion (or at least make it rare).  But hey, at least some of us want to try, still. I think that starts with reducing polemical rhetoric, increasing mutual understanding, and searching for common ground to build from.

I grew up in the staunchly pro life Bible belt. I was raised pro life. I was surrounded by pro life people, i.e., evangelical Christian Republicans mostly, and I converted to Catholicism at twenty-two. I consider myself absolutely pro life, in the most "extreme" (i.e., consistent) way possible--from conception until natural death. I make no exceptions for rape or incest (why impose the death penalty on a child for the sin of a parent?). I am even for the abolition of the death penalty.  I am opposed to euthanasia. I am for welcoming and being open to children and large families (and practice that--we now have six).

I think these positions are demanded by a consistent pro life ethic, and defensible without relying on religious rationale, although they are certainly strengthened by Christian, Catholic faith. We also need to structure society as much as we can to minimize cases where people feel that taking life is a good choice. I do not see these as an either-or proposition--we can make the right to life inalienable and compassionately help people in need. We must.

I published my first pro life article in 2004. I wrote in 2008 on how I prioritize life and related issues in deciding whom to vote for. I've written my Congressman. And written here and here and here. I have had innumerable conversations on social media, email, and in person defending and advancing the pro life position. I teach my children to be pro life. I have voted for many pro life candidates, with that issue playing a big part in my choice. I contribute bi-weekly to the Blessed Margaret Home for Crisis Pregnancies. (I note that to advertise the good work they do and suggest others consider supporting them or similar homes. As one of my pro choice friends said recently--that should be something even pro choice people can get behind.)

There should be no question that I am staunchly pro life. I live it. I speak it openly and publicly.

Not Anti Choice
All that said, I am not "anti choice." Putting restrictions on abortion and, ultimately, making it illegal, does not remove a person's free will to choose. We have all kinds of laws, and people still choose to break them, with varying degrees of knowledge and consent. We have oodles of legal groundwork for what it looks like for abortion to be illegal--the women are not punished by those laws, and they certainly still made the choice to abort, even when it was illegal.

A person who is pro life is no more "anti choice" than is a person is who thinks that pedophilia, rape, or murder should be illegal. On important issues, society has to draw the line and say "this behavior is not okay." And come on, riding a bike without a helmet and speeding is also illegal--talk about being anti choice... Abortion takes the life of a human being. It should not be legal. It should not be an inconsequential "choice." By wanting to make it illegal, pro life people are saying that this is a line that should not be crossed--even knowing that some people will still choose to do it.

Not Pro Abortion
Similarly, I'd like to address my pro life friends who tend to like to use the term "pro abortion" to apply to anyone who is pro choice. (I admit to doing that myself--to make a point.) "Pro abortion" is a polemical choice of language. It does not accurately reflect the view of most of the people to whom it is applied.

Some claim that "pro choice" means a choice for abortion.  But the CDC says that in 2012 (the most recent data we have), "the abortion ratio was 210 abortions per 1,000 live births." That means that roughly 2 in 10 women chose to abort. So factually, the claim is false. Women currently have the legal choice to choose abortion, and 80% choose life (as of 2012). I don't know what the ratio was prior to Roe vs. Wade, but I suspect it wasn't a lot different. People in desperate situations often still choose to break the law if they feel they need to.

Even if you're not direly poor, carrying a baby to term, giving birth, and being responsible for it for life is a big deal. I don't care how wealthy you are, that's a big life change--real pain, potential impact to your livelihood/ability to work, and years of responsibility. For the vast majority, it's not a flippant choice to make at all. Even choosing to give a child up for adoption is not an easy choice, even though it may be the best choice. I feel like in all the emotional fervor of the pro life movement, we often lose sight that abortion is by no means a choice that most women freely want to make.

According to this Pew 2016 data, only 15% think abortion is morally acceptable, while 56% think it should be legal. That means that by far, most do not think abortion is good--they are not for (pro) abortion, but they think it should be a legal option. Again, the data contradict the claim that being pro choice is being pro abortion. We know that such truly pro abortion people exist, but they are a small minority of pro choice people.

Also, it is noteworthy to see that while 56% think abortion should be legal, a full 80% actually act pro life and choose life. That's a good thing. Can you imagine if everyone who thought abortion should be legal actually chose abortion? That'd be almost 3x as many abortions per year. Thank God that people act more pro life than they vote.

The Impasse
Now, the Catholic bishops in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear (in line with the universal Catechism of the Church and unbroken prior teaching going back to apostolic tradition as seen in the Didache) that formal cooperation in abortion is objectively, intrinsically, gravely evil. On that, someone who is faithful to Catholic teaching and practice cannot disagree. We will never be able to turn a blind eye to abortion. We will never be able to see it as a morally acceptable choice, so the case is very strong to make it illegal in our view.

Data for abortion mortality show that legalizing abortion led to less danger for those women who will choose to do it whether or not it is legal. It is difficult to reconcile that with criminalizing it again--nobody wants women to be endangered. But I admit that I find it more difficult to reconcile keeping something legal that is the (often brutal) murder of an innocent child. That people will choose (even under duress) something that endangers them does not mean, in itself, that it should be legal--especially when the chosen action results in the murder of another human being.

On the flip side, pro choice advocates have shown little, if any, willingness to budge. And it seems even in recent years that this conflict has only increased antipathy towards the pro life cause while at the same time galvanizing the pro choice folks and even making their positions more extreme. What are we to think when the "and rare" qualifier is abandoned from "safe, legal, and rare"? Clearly, this culture war has only resulted in greater polarization and impasse. And I can't deny I think it's largely due to the posturing and pandering of politicians.

Reconsidering the Focus of Pro Life Action
Pro life advocates often use rhetoric that makes it sound like that by making abortion legal, we essentially created the problem of abortion. "By not criminalizing it, we are killing N number of babies every year/minute." I have even thought and argued that in the past. But as I learned more, I discovered that not only has this evil always been with us (which of course I knew) but also that the numbers have always been high. Indeed, data show that restrictive laws do not correlate with low numbers of abortions.

While I do not agree with the fallacy that essentially says we should make murder legal because people will do it anyways, the numbers do indicate that our efforts to criminalize abortion would not have a significant effect on the actual number of abortions. And it's certainly not as if criminalizing it will reduce that number to zero, as is implied by the rhetoric. So this argument that often pushes people into prioritizing voting for pro life politicians based on these numbers doesn't hold up. People even use this argument to justify voting for Trump, which is unfortunate to say the least, considering everything he has going against him from a moral/common good point of view and that he appears to be only nominally pro life.

Again, that doesn't mean we should keep something that is intrinsically evil legal. It just means we need to put the practical impact of the laws in perspective. It seems that the terrible numbers of abortions will not be greatly impacted by criminalization. Proportionally, then, the common pro life argument that this issue is far more urgent than others does not appear valid. And in the last twenty or so years, even while legal, the numbers have been dropping. Each side has their rationale for that drop. I suspect it is a combination of many factors, not the least of which are pro life awareness efforts and efforts to help women in crisis pregnancies.

Another observation is that in the pro life movement, there is a lot of focus on overturning Roe vs. Wade. But even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, that doesn't guarantee each state would criminalize it (indeed some states had decriminalized it before then), and even after 40+ years of trying, we still haven't managed to reverse it. We still today have a majority of people who think it should be legal. Something isn't working, and not for lack of trying!

I am anything but a pro abortion apologist (as I doubtless will be called by some for posting these thoughts), but I think we pro life people have to consider these data. So, so, so much energy and passion is invested in this war to reverse Roe vs. Wade and re-criminalize abortion. We do this for good reason--abortion is intrinsically evil; it is at least as evil as any murder and even more repulsive given the circumstances of it being a defenseless baby in its mother's womb. But given the considerations above, is focusing so much on criminalization still the best way we can fight this evil?

Without giving an inch that it is intrinsically evil, could we shift more of our energies to 1) something that has a greater chance of actually happening and 2) has a more immediate, significant impact on making abortion rare? Like fighting the things that cause women to feel they need an abortion? Like enabling women to feel they have a real option to choose life? Like evangelizing our culture so that even more women will choose life? At this point, are we maybe working against ourselves to focus so much on criminalization? It seems to be the epicenter of polemical divisions that prevent us from working with others to truly make abortion rare.

For the record, I do not want to downplay the immense efforts that many pro life persons make in concretely helping women and educating the populace on abortion-related issues. I literally support them. But I am thinking particularly of our political efforts, which are front and center right now. Is it possible that, in politics specifically, we've let ourselves be manipulated into letting criminalization shape our thinking so much that we are spending too much of our energies there when they could be better spent in other areas? Is it possible that it is suboptimal to think of being pro life as primarily voting for people who will work to criminalize abortion? Have those we voted for to that end delivered on that promise? Have they and we neglected other considerations that could more effectively, actually reduce abortion, not to mention other issues of grave importance? What more should we look for in a pro life platform and political action?

This is not a call to surrender. It is a call to reprioritization and a call for honest reflection on what our current strategy has done and not done and probably will or won't do in the future. It's a call to think more about how--if we really do care about all these babies and all those women--we can really, actually save and help them.

Some Questions for Pro Choice Folks
For those who are pro choice, given that so few believe it is an acceptable moral choice, how do you true that up with thinking it should be legal? Isn't something off in our society when it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt, but it is legal to kill an unborn baby? What restrictions on abortion might be acceptable restrictions? What can you do--assuming you think it should remain legal--to help society not become numb to the horror that it is? What can you do to educate people about the terrible realities, including the emotional pain that haunts most women for life? Would making it illegal help people to understand the severity of the evil? What can you--we--do to help enable women to choose life?

I also know there are those who really see nothing wrong with abortion, who don't think it is killing a human person. Even for those, surely we can agree that even just considering the often negative impact on the women who have them, it's not a good thing. And can you be absolutely certain that it is not a human person deserving of equal protection? Is it worth taking the risk given that it might be a human person? Seems to me that it's still safer and better to work to reduce abortions.

Can We Work Together?
To all, the common ground seems to be fighting the causes that lead to the perceived need for abortion, educating people on the realities of abortion, and ensuring that we have social structures and services to help women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies--to help them choose life. It's a tall order, but it touches on so much that could be better in our society. I think it's worth the effort.

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? 

Where is All the Righteous Indignation Now?

The trial of corrupt abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has produced some horrifying testimony: articles.philly.com/2013-04-09/new…
— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) April 11, 2013

You know. One really does try to be fair and not give into conspiracy theories, but the continued utter lack of reporting on anything that can be construed as against abortion by all of the major news media outlets does give one pause.

I truly think that if more people understood the horrible reality of abortion (and didn't just argue about it abstractly in terms of rights and choice and life), we'd have precious few advocates of that obviously evil practice. The problem is that it is so horrific, so utterly despicable and disturbing, that you literally cannot stomach to think about it very long, much less see the results of so many mangled little human bodies. It is literally the same level of disturbing as the videos the Allies took in WWII after entering concentration camps. It is a Holocaust, one that is swept under the rug, probably much like the Nazi one was swept under the rug in Germany.

Oh look, HuffPo did finally pick up a story on it. Just look at the comments. One person says, "why have I not heard of this before?" But then you have the absolutely incredible assertions that "this is the kind of thing we'll have if abortion is outlawed." Hello? Abortion is LEGAL, and it happens. In what alternate reality does it make sense to say, "we need to make it more legal so this won't happen"??

People who support abortion generally are not monsters. That is because they either willfully ignore and suppress the horrific reality or have been so duped by our society that hides it that they don't really even know about it. Very few people who face the reality of abortion could possibly still advocate for it without some serious mental gymnastics and a large does of turning a blind eye. It is simply that disturbing and evil.

And yet these same people will, as a rule, treat you like you are some evil KKK white racist homophobe if you don't support what they, again euphemistically, call "marriage equality." Oh, they very nearly shudder with indignation if you dare to even question the matter. But barbarously butchering babies by the billion?  No problem for them. No outrage. No indignation.

Talk about having things bass ackwards...

UPDATE (12 April 2013): This article also compares coverage to the coverage of serial and mass murderers. Another analogy is the coverage of the "bullying" at Rutgers. Another example is the coverage of the Penn State scandal. Of course, there's also Sandy Hook, and countless other examples. There was even more coverage of Philly's own Michael Vick and his abuse of dogs..

Again, where is the moral outrage about Gosnell? Why isn't this plastered over every news media outlet daily for weeks or longer, as in the case of these others. Why? Because it might cause people to question their thinking on abortion and come to terms with its brutishness, its evil, its utter unacceptability.

There's also this--a pro-choice reporter essentially admitting guilt--that they haven't been covering it but should.

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.

Give It a Rest

In comments on my musing on conservatism and ignorance, one anonymous poster (one of my atheist fans, I think :) ) goes to town on me. I might have ignored it, but I gotta do my post for the day. ;-)

First, simply incorrect assertions:

• That I said Krauss is a journalist. -  This is minor, but I didn't. I can read, and I saw he is an academic. However, he was writing an opinion in a periodical, and I did lump him in with journalists because they are comparable in the ways I was speaking of, and he gets fairly lumped in by writing his oped in a periodical just like the journalists.
• That I'm doing insufficient fact checking. - I am not sure what is expected on this point. I simply responded to the evidence offered by Krauss and took him to task on it. I called Krauss on the evidence he offered. If Krauss was relying on other evidence for his assertions, he should have shared it. He did not. I can't possibly keep up with every quote that, for example, Rick Santorum has given the media; neither can Krauss. But he offered links to supposed evidence for his outlandish claims, and his evidence did not support his claims. That is what I was criticizing.
• That I am arrogantly calling others arrogant. - I don't see it, and no evidence was offered for this critique of me. The commenter used the word arrogant more than I did. Here's where a form of the word appeared in what I said: "The problem is that too many educated people end up forgetting those skills and instead just assume that prevailing liberal ideology is de facto more reasoned and less ignorant, which leaves them in the same ignorance and arrogance that they deplore in conservatives, blindly following the opinions of their peers."
  
  How is this arrogantly calling others arrogant? I'm talking about some segment of "educated people" who 1) assume that their ideology is de facto more reasoned and 2) blindly follow the opinions of their peers, all the while 3) deploring the supposed arrogance and ignorance of their ideological opponents.  Wouldn't you agree that doing 1-3 would imply arrogance and, indeed, ignorance? You can insert name of ideology, and it is equally arrogant. How is it arrogant to say this? I don't get it.  

Next, the commenter takes me to task for defending Santorum's remarks on evolution. Let's look at the facts at hand. 

Krauss accuses Santorum of saying that "evolution... has no firm basis in fact." I called him on it because in the evidence Krauss himself provided, Santorum says no such thing. Strangely, the commenter offers the same quote Krauss offered, in which Rick says that he doesn't agree that evolution is an incontrovertible fact. Go read it for yourself. Even most followers of Scientism admit readily that even so-called scientific laws are not incontrovertible--they're just our best understanding/models based on the best science that we have right now. So what's the big deal when Rick says the same thing? Oh, right, because he follows up by pointing out, correctly, that the way that evolution has been presented, including in the classroom, is that it implies that God does not exist. 

Look, I know there is a long history of bad blood between those who believe in some form of creation and those who adhere to evolution. The atheist evolutionists are as much to blame as the creationists in perpetuating this unnecessary feud. If materialist atheists didn't champion evolution as, essentially, the God-killer, more or less saying that if you accept the science of evolution that you cannot believe in God, I strongly suspect we wouldn't have had all the trouble we've had. On the other hand, you have literal creationists and others of fundamentalist tendencies who are too quick to dismiss the actual science underlying the attached atheistic philosophy.

What Rick seems to, and I definitely, object to is that because evolution has been challenged, the evolutionists have dug in, pushed evolution as even more certain than it is, ignored and downplayed evidence that causes problems for the model, unnecessarily attached philosophical underpinnings to the science, and knee-jerk react to any questioning of the theory.  In short, they've created a religious dogma out of something that should be science.

After evolution, the commenter moved on to global warming. Again, I made what shouldn't be a controversial statement--that with complex systems like the climate, the best science can offer is thoughtful guesses, i.e., theories. They may be theories based on science and evidence, but they are theories nonetheless. As I linked to, there are plenty of scientists who dissent from the current mainline global warming theory, in multiple ways. But here's what happens in scientific communities--the same thing that happens in most human communities: if you don't follow the popular notions, you get ostracized. It's quite a recurring pattern in the arts and sciences--people who don't align with the popular notions are shouted down and ostracized by the narrow minded. 

If manmade global warming is indeed caused by the factors that are currently held in the majority opinion (consider me an agnostic on this point), I'd suggest that it makes that issue the "evolution" of our day. You have people who take the science, and then they create a philosophy around it--environmentalism. The philosophy becomes confused with the science, and people who reject the attached philosophy are more inclined to be skeptical of the science. At the same time, the adherents become ever more vitriolic and dig in, refusing to hear out or consider the problems with the theory, downplaying the contradicting evidence, and perpetuating an epic conflict that should have no place in science. Add on to this that governments are being employed in the service of this theory to blow tons of money during the one of the biggest global economic crises in history, and you have a recipe for all kinds of stupid, on both sides of the debate.

What's sad is you'd think science, which should train minds with objectivity, rigor, and indeed a certain amount of skepticism, would produce less of this kind of tribalism, but history shows this isn't true. Sadly and ironically, a generation or two down the line, when people have come around to the dissenter views, they arrogantly look back at their predecessors thinking, "how could they have been so blind to the science that was right in front of them? The gall!"

And that brings me to the next point--Galileo.  This commenter actually seems to think that Krauss should have brought up Galileo and goes on to do so. He laughs off the reasonable observation that the Church hierarchy of the day was working with the knowledge available to them at the time, anachronistically saying that the best knowledge of the time was right in front of them. I have a few observations on this.

1. It is rather simpleminded to not understand the very basic historical truism that you judge the people of an age by the standards of the age. A more common expression of this is that hindsight is is twenty-twenty. A scientific mind would have no problem grappling with this truism and applying it, and I think given a lack of serious prejudice bordering on bigotry against the Church, this particular commenter would take it as a given that this is true.
2. In point of fact, the case of Galileo was based more on personal animosity than anything related to religion. In this case, there were other advocates for heliocentrism at the time who were both priests and lay educated folks who were not persecuted. The pope at the time happened to not be convinced and wrote a personal treatise on the subject; it was when Galileo publicly humiliated the pope that action was taken. I'm not defending it--it was wrong, and it was right of the Church to apologize for its treatment of the G-man. Using the power of the Church for a personal vendetta is wrong. We all know it.
3. The fact that this is still being harped on after so many centuries is actually telling. If the enemies of the Church can't find any better evidence of our supposed vendetta against science than this one, centuries old incident, I guess that pretty much disproves the supposed vendetta.

The fact is, the Church is not nor has ever been an enemy of science. The Church is bigger than this or that priest, bishop, or pope. It is bigger than any individual or group of individuals who happen to be in power in the Church at this or that particular point in time. Members of the Church established the concept of university. They participated and fostered the development of the sciences, and they actively participate in them today. Many of them are leaders in their fields. My own Order tends to prefer individuals with advanced degrees in the sciences as postulants to become friars. The Jesuits are also another well-known academically inclined order. The list goes on..

What enemies of the Church don't like is that we hold science to our ethical standard, and sometimes that means presumed progress gets slowed down. We have very high ethical standards, in fact, and having been around for two thousand years, we know that we shouldn't rush in and do things just because we can, but that we need to seriously consider the consequences of our actions, not just on individuals today but on human society and history as a whole, a global whole. And the Church is the only organization positioned to do this, given its care for over a billion souls globally. We take a historical perspective on things. We don't forget or conveniently ignore the recent history where science was abused in the service of fascist and communist regimes, in the service of eugenics, and more recently in the service of the slaughter of millions of innocent human lives and the terrible damaging of women and families. The life of the mother does not inherently trump the life of the child, so excuse us for standing by that principle. 

We can debate the ethical principles; that's fine. We can and should debate the science and its implications. We can and will come to differing conclusions looking at the same evidence. But it's just plain ignorant or dishonest to perpetuate the myth that the Church is opposed to science. Any thoughtful, educated person should feel ashamed for doing so, not just because it is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant but also because it damages the effectiveness of an organization that indisputably does immeasurable good for humanity in health, social, and charitable services--more so than any other organization today or in all of human history.

Seriously. Give it a rest. 

Health Nazis

Today we had our health plan update at my company. Usually these updates are a drag--just plain boring. Often they're depressing and upsetting because it usually means we gotta pay more. These last two years, though, we've lucked out. It looks like I'll save a whole $7 per paycheck with the changes this year. :)  That's great, but a new theme has been developing. It was there last year, and it was THE theme this year--if your insurance premiums are going up, it's your fault for being unhealthy.

Last year the broker rep just mentioned it briefly, but this time he took a whole fifteen minutes or more to drone on about it. He even literally said, "if you can't do it for yourself, do it for your family; if you can't do it for your family, do it for your coworkers."  What did he name as unhealthy? Why of course being overweight was the number one thing.  Oh yeah, and smoking.  Why not just point a finger at overweight people and say it--the healthcare crisis is your fault!

Really? I mean, really? Let's see, how many times did I go to the doctor for being sick in the last ten years?  ZERO. Each physical I get (and yes, I did get one in the last year), I pass--no problems, except of course that I'm overweight.  What about that "healthy" girl who keeps hurting herself through overexertion in her exercise?  What about that "healthy" guy who keeps getting injured playing sports? How about that "healthy" guy who drives like a maniac?  How about that "healthy" guy who is into dangerous hobbies like bungee jumping and skydiving?  How about that "healthy" guy who is stressing his body to death by playing video games into the wee hours and not getting enough sleep on a daily basis? How about that "healthy" guy who thinks that recreational drugs are a fun pastime? What about that "healthy" girl who is actually underweight? What about that "healthy" lady whose weight is constantly vacillating as she goes from fad diet to fad diet?  What about that "healthy" guy who has back problems that require expensive surgeries? How about that "healthy" guy with sleep problems and has to have procedures and equipment? What about that "healthy" gal who spends too much time in the sun and tanning booth? How about those "healthy" folks who contract cancer or die young from heart disease?  The list could go on and on.

Yes, I've known and worked with folks who fit these descriptions. I'm not making this up--real costs, real dangers, real people, real problems. And you're gonna single out being overweight as the source of the healthcare crisis? Never mind that the obesity "epidemic" has been discredited [1], this skinny health fanatic is gonna stand there and insinuate to all the people present that the fatties among us are responsible for our increasing healthcare costs. (Never mind that despite us fatties, our costs have gone down for two years.)

And let's think for a second about how convenient it is for healthcare industry folks to lay the blame on the patients--"we can't help that we're raising prices; it's your fault for being unhealthy." Right... How about taking responsibility for the greed epidemic that is really behind the ridiculous increases in healthcare costs? How about dealing with all the government regulation and litigation that increases the costs of healthcare?  And get this, he was also pushing their "health assessment tool." "Oh no, we won't use it to decide how much we should charge you, nooo. It's for your benefit."  Riiiight...

The health naziism needs to stop. Respectfully, Mrs. Obama, find another mission--our country has bigger problems than people packing extra pounds. Let's not pretend that the "Affordable Health Care Act" hasn't actually caused higher premiums for pretty much everybody as the providers are hedging their bets and scraping in as much money as they can in the meantime. And when it inevitably is struck down, do we think that the premiums will come down? I think not.  The fat cat insurance companies have little interest in bringing down healthcare costs; for them to pretend otherwise is a sham. And talk about collusion and price fixing--the bid process is plainly corrupt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against universal healthcare access as such. I just don't think Obamacare will survive the legal challenges, and I'm not sure that it is necessarily the right way to achieve the noble end. The problem I see, though, is when false memes like the obesity epidemic gain traction, public opinion vilifies overweight folks, the President's wife makes pushing a particular way of life her mission (reinforcing the false meme), laws start getting made, special taxes are put in place, overweight people are ostracized, etc. Most worryingly, when people feel like they're paying for you, they feel like they should have a say in what you do. And basic civil liberties start falling left and right.

The old saying "freedom isn't free" applies here. OWS folks were all about saying we just need to suck up the real, immediate, significant drain they incurred on the public coffers--they have a right to assemble. It's part of living in a free country. Sometimes we pay for people to be able to do things we don't agree with. The road goes both ways. And again, we're talking about something for which the costs are not immediate, nor is it clear at all from the data that there is a direct cause, not to mention the small part weight plays in overall health. If we're gonna start controlling people's lives, I have a big list earlier in this post you can start with. But seriously, we need to stop. This is America, founded on the principles of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Give it a rest. If you want to spend your free time exercising, I say good for you. If you want to eat less, awesome--that's a real way to save your money. I contribute my fair share, and I take responsibility for my actions. I'm not asking for free healthcare. I buy into the system of insurance just like you, and I'm not going to tell you to stop stressing, overstraining, playing sports, undersleeping, or even skydiving, if that's your thing. Life is for living. Enjoy it. Slainté!


[1] http://www.csicop.org/si/show/obesity_epidemic_or_myth/, http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth1.1.htm, http://adayinthefatlife.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/myth-the-obesity-epidemic-is-whats-causing-the-healthcare-crisis/

Wasn't Jesus Transhuman?

You know, I blogged briefly in response to an article I read on transhumanism a couple days ago. That's been rolling around in my head I guess, and then I read this great homily by the papal theologian, Fr. Cantalamessa, who dove into St. Athanasius' defense of the divinity of Christ. And suddenly, the two thoughts collided and BAM! Wasn't Jesus transhuman?

I mean, the whole awesomeness is that he assumed humanity into his divinity, and there's a great patristic tradition that talks about this being a divinization of humanity. In short, it seems like God fully intends for us to become transhuman. He has provided a way for us to do so by his grace, but it sets an interesting precedent.  If God didn't intend to leave us as we were in our humanity but wants to enhance us, I think that's a positive indicator that we shouldn't outright reject doing the same using the natural gifts he's given us. We just need to do it in a way that is good and moral.

Transhumanism, Anyone?

E. Christian Brugger, a Catholic bioethicist, begins a series on transhumanism in Zenit. For this one, he focuses on the issue of selective reproduction and makes a brief stop at performance enhancing drugs, condemning them in classic Catholic style. It seems he's intent on giving the idea a bad name, but I guess we'll see as the series develops.

What I'd rather see Catholic ethicists exploring is what might be acceptable forms of enhancement. I sure hope the consensus doesn't tack towards "we have to leave things alone and 'natural'." I mean, if we follow that approach, I guess I'm guilty of enhancing myself with caffeine, right? What about eating spicy foods--that gets endorphins rushing and enhances my sense of what I can accomplish?

On a more realistic note, what about cybernetic implants that can improve our cognitive capabilities or, for example, reflexive abilities--making us safer, better operators of high tech equipment? What about drugs that could enhance our ability to fight disease, let us require less sleep, live longer, metabolize food more efficiently, literally have that extra hand we always talk about needing, and so on? Better yet, how about detachable arms so that you could snuggle up to your spouse more comfortably?

In all technological advancements, there is the potential for abuse. I think our response as Catholics needs to be less immediately negative and focused on the problems and rather look at how the technology could be used for true good.

A Human is a Human

Just a brief reminder. A human is a human. Science is very clear now--a distinct human being is formed at conception, and barring unexpected interruption, that same life will continue until its natural death. Trying to draw arbitrary lines about "personhood" or supposed/projected quality of life are just that--arbitrary. They are no justification for not defending the indisputable reality of human life from conception to natural death.

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?

My Recent Exchange with Congressman Holt on Abortion

Below is an email exchange today between my Congressman, Rush Holt, and me about abortion. I wonder if he'll reply again. 


----


Dear Congressman Holt,

Of course you realize how ludicrous it would be to say that the "choice of whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her doctor, her family and her religion, not the federal government," if abortion means killing a human being, right?

I ask you, how can you determine when a conceived child becomes a human whose basic right to life should be protected by the government?  At birth? Why--what change in its nature occurs at that point to make a human worth protecting at that point?  Some time before?  Why? Explain at what objective point, based on science, a conceived child becomes a human being.

The only consistent, rational answer is to say that as soon as the child gets its full genetic makeup that makes it its own unique being. And that is at conception. It's a scientific fact, not a belief, not a religious issue.

I am 100% for supporting women's choice, but choice is never an absolute. I should not be allowed to choose to beat my wife, and my wife--or any other woman--should certainly not be allowed to choose to kill her unborn child. What we need to do is give women real choices, choices that are moral--helping them to raise the child or, at worst, facilitating them putting the child up for adoption.  

Sincerely,

Mr. J. Ambrose Little, O.P.

An American Citizen and Your Constituent

P.S. If the existing law does what you say it does and makes the proposed law unnecessary, why is it being proposed?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM,  wrote:

Dear Mr. Little:

Thank you for contacting me about health care. I appreciate hearing from you and I apologize for the delay in my reply.

As your voice in the U.S. House of Representatives, I always strive to represent my constituents' concerns and interests and provide personal service to them. I truly value your input and suggestions on the issues before the House. In a representative government such as ours, it is essential that I know what you are thinking in order to do my job.

I appreciate learning of your support for H.R. 1179, introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). H.R. 1179 would amend the health reform law to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or purchaser without penalty. This legislation has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee for further consideration. I will keep your thoughts in mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process.

As you may know, current law has prohibited the use of any federal funding to be used for abortion services since 1976. Since then the law has been subsequently expanded to cover federal health care programs so that federal government employees who wish to have abortions must pay for them "out-of-pocket". In addition, abortion services are not provided for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners. 

You may be interested to know that the health reform law made no changes to existing prohibitions on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services. The law further maintains federal conscience rights for physicians and health practitioners. I believe that this amendment to the health care law is unnecessary, and have heard from many constituents who agree.

I believe that there are some matters that should not be legislated, and this is one of them. The choice of whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her doctor, her family and her religion, not the federal government. If we are to reduce the need for abortion, it is essential that we provide women with the information and services they need to make responsible and educated family planning decisions. 

Although we disagree on this issue, thank you for contacting me. To learn more about my work in Congress, please visit my website at http://holt.house.gov.I look forward to hearing from you again about this and other issues.

Sincerely,
RUSH HOLT
Member of Congress