Response to Fr. Massingale on Prioritizing Racial Concerns in the Church

I realize that white people are not supposed to be allowed to have any opinion other than submission to the prevailing cultural headwinds, that we may not dispute or contend that things are different than they are presented by BLM and BLM-like advocates, and yet, here I go..

Contrary to the binary mentality promoted these days on all sides, that is, you either fully agree with me, or you are my enemy and evil, I assert that we can and should be allowed to argue about these things in a reasonable, respectful way. To that end, I offer some critiques of this interview and some of the positions asserted by Fr. Massingale.

Possibly the most “problematic” thing I take away from the interview is the effusive condescension. This is maybe not something new, but it seems to have gotten to fever pitch these days. As I said above, white people are, effectively, being told to “just shut up and listen.” “Your perspective on race is completely worthless and meaningless, because you are white.” (If you think about how racist that kind of talk is, it is rather shocking, but I digress.)

Not only that, the Father here goes on at great length to tell us how white people think, what our problems are, what our failures are. Again, this is based on the simple fact of the color of our skin (yikes). But if we use the prevailing logic of our culture nowadays, he should have zero grounds to speak on what white people think and what our experiences are—because he’s not white. 

We have been told by the broader culture that if you are not the thing then you have no valid standing to speak on it. This applies to being a woman, being a mother, being of color, being gay, trans, etc., being married (i.e., if you are a priest), and so on. If you personally do not have lived experience, your opinion is worthless and meaningless. So, following that logic of the Left, on what basis does Fr. Massingale assert what all white people think, believe, have experienced, and so on? It’s mind boggling the scale of broad generalization that he is undertaking, and yet he does it with such conviction and certitude.

He says that we white people are cowards—that is our core problem. Okay. Wow. Maybe some of us are. Maybe some of us aren’t. The broad assertion is kinda farcical, when he is speaking to a white interviewer who is giving him a platform to speak on this issue. And let’s not forget how so many white people (of a certain mindset) have fallen over themselves to appear to be advocates, especially in this last year. In this social moment, it is far more unpopular and risky to voice criticism of the BLM movement than not—at least in the broader culture.

The thing is, I happen to agree that there are (or seem to be, so far as I can tell from my “ignorant” white perspective) remaining race-related issues to address in our country. What I oppose is the overreaction we are seeing along these lines. I have seen/heard some persuasive cases made that we do in fact have some forms of effectively institutionalized racism. (Whether or not those things were in intention racist is another debate entirely.) But as a pragmatist when it comes to something as practical as government and people’s lived experience of human dignity, I think the rationales/intentions are less important—now—than the effects, which do seem to be problematic for at least some non-white people. (Though rarely are these practical issues simply a matter of racism but are also tied up with social class/economic background, so focusing only on racial thinking is only solving part of the core causes.)

What I do not jive with is the ongoing demonization of white people, as a whole, our country’s history—as a whole, and the current social situation—as a whole. I need not provide examples. It is everywhere we look these days. There are even vocal people who cast the entire history of Europeans as being “white supremacist.” Utter hogwash. A case of forcing a pre-determined point of view onto the data of history, which is no better than what white people are accused of, only these “enlightened” social activists today should walk their talk.

So back to Fr. Massingale. He notes how well received he has been in South Africa. He asserts (and I have no reason to doubt him) that South Africa has prioritized dealing with racism as its #1 challenge and that he perceives little to no resistance on that. Whereas, he can only attribute American resistance to such prioritization as, well, racism (or cowardice!).

I checked Wikipedia, and the white population of South Africa is around 8%—and seems to be dropping. That not only inverts the reality in the US, but even more than that. In the US, the non-hispanic white population as of 2019 is 60%. Only 13% are black/African American. Perhaps the most obvious explanation for resistance versus non resistance is simply population-based. And in the past (1960 for example), we had 85% non-hispanic white population. Needless to say, for most of our history, we have been very much mostly white, by a very large majority, and it is only in recent decades that trend has been slowly changing.

The point is, the assertion that there is always and everywhere white supremacy as the key social driver in the US is rather better explained by simple demographics—the overwhelming majority of people were white. So it’s normal (not evil) for them to be culturally white, to write history from a white perspective, and so on. And to demand and pretend that history is better retold in a distorted way as some kind of social justice corrective does not really make sense. And I say that as a trained historian. 

Nowadays we are being told everywhere that we should force diversity—even where it doesn’t actually exist. Diversity is some new supreme virtue. It should also be forced on history. Not only that, we are told implicitly and sometimes explicitly that any good that white people have done—in the country or the world—is negated by racism. Thomas Jefferson was not a great man—because he held slaves. George Washington was not a great man—because he held slaves. And so on ad infinitum. I think we can all agree that it was certainly a moral flaw and, more than likely, a moral blind spot for so many in those days. 

But that moral failure does not negate everything good they may have done in their lives. Especially considering the prevailing culture and mindset in those days, it would be anachronistic to expect every person who did great (momentous) things to have been outstanding in their day with regards to the issue of racism. As terrible as racism is and was, we have to see things in their historical context and judge people by their historical context, if we are to judge justly. And what should social justice advocates be concerned with if not justice?

Similarly, if we are to understand prevailing social currents today, we need to do so in context. Applying how South Africa thinks about racism to the US and trying to equate our contexts does not hold water. There are other important differences beyond demographics between us, and to blithely assign the cause of the difference in our responses to racial activism today to moral failure is unjustified. 

Fr. Massingale also notes (as have others) that if you go into a mostly white Catholic parish today, you will see mostly white depictions in the artwork. This is, largely, true of European art as well. Again, why? Not because of overt racism or even so-called subconscious racism. These people have simply been making art based on the reality that they lived on a day to day basis. When most (by far) of the people you interact with are of a certain skin color, your art will de facto reflect that. If we go by actual proportions, we might want to see like 1 out of 10 images (historically, at a national level) non-white, but the point—let’s be VERY clear on this—of religious art is the RELIGIOUS subject. It is oriented towards God as its end and primary concept. It is not inherently a matter of (nor should it be preoccupied with) promoting the idea of skin color diversity. That is a very, very historically novel concept—the idea of consciously (and often artificially) forcing “representation” into art.

Now, I do not disagree with his point that if we live in and are exposed to greater diversity, it will permeate our consciousness and eventually be reflected in how we think. I do not even, really, object to the idea of adding more diversity in our religious art, especially as we are ever becoming a more diverse society. It just makes sense, and humans being humans, it will happen naturally as the demographics change. Go to any culture round the world, and you will see their art reflects who they are. That is not inherently racism or xenophobia or any other -ism. It’s just human nature (and nothing inherently wrong in that aspect of human nature, to boot). 

Further, you will not find a priest today who will say no to art because it is “diverse.” (Of course, when I generalize, there are doubtless exceptions, but this is a rule we can rely on.) Not “prioritizing” making this happen is, again, not racism. It is a matter of logical priority that each parish/priest faces. Making ends meet as parishes close all around us is, I dare say, likely to weigh more heavily in priorities for the average parish. (And that's just one of many possible reasonable examples of things that may take higher priority without inherently, implicitly, much less explicitly being racist.)

So again, my objection is based against the assertion that it is racism (implicit or not) that has driven this reality of non-diverse art. It is rather better explained as simple demographics and the nature of humans for their art to mimic their perceived reality. And on top of that, the purpose of the art is religious, not so much cultural, and so there is even more reason to not presume any ill intent or latent racism. 

I am sure there are those, if anyone is still reading at this point, who will agree with most of this. I am also sure that there are those who would disagree and, likely, feel like I am nit picking on these points. To that I reply that these points are simply emblematic of the larger, broader problematic trend in our social discourse today. For those of us who have not already kowtowed to the prevailing social zeitgeist because it makes us feel more socially woke, IF the desire is to actually change hearts and minds of those who resist, then coming at us with this kind of “you are all and have always been moral failures” messaging is just going to go nowhere and fast. That is, of course, presuming there is an intent to win over hearts.  

If we want a more realistic explanation of the resistance today, it is largely and simply drawn on political lines. Because we have politicized EVERYTHING. And when our favored talking heads say “this is what you should think about this,” the VAST majority fall into lock step behind that. This is true on both the Left and the Right. And so, when the Left champions BLM, the Right picks up their rhetorical weapons on the other side. This is not inherently about racism. It is political tribalism, plain and simple, as is the case with nearly every social issue we face. The resistance is not about being white and racist against people of color. It is about NOT being a Democrat, NOT being a “socialist” or “communist” or "bleeding heart liberal.” 

As soon as caring about still-existing racism is seen as part of the Democrat agenda, it’s game over for about half the population on that issue. It doesn't help that a BLM founder openly admitted she is a "trained Marxist," either. If you actually look at what "the other side" says, they worry a lot about "socialism" and "communism," and they focus more on the rioting that came with BLM and the diminution of the lives and service of police men and women ("blue lives matter"). These are not, no matter the facile assertions to the contrary, racist motives for resisting. And that doesn't even get us into actual, substantial differences about what to do (if anything, some might argue) about the problem. 

And then, for those who tend to try to think more independently of parties, we see the exaggerations and vilifications, and when we are the target of them, we naturally are going to be defensive and resist. It’s not about “not wanting to feel uncomfortable.” That is a remarkably cheap rhetorical ploy from the BLM playbook. I have put myself in plenty of “uncomfortable” conversations and listened to plenty of people that I had a good sense would really rub me the wrong way (as in this case). I have made an effort to push through that discomfort, hear the other side, ponder their points of view, and I have actually amended my opinion on some things based on these experiences. But I am not going to lie down and let people walk all over me, just because they say I should--because of my skin color, my gender, my sexual orientation, etc. I will not be emotionally manipulated into submission. And I certainly will not stand for wholesale rewriting of reality based on a very flawed epistemological lens just because some people who had my skin color did bad things in the past towards people of other skin color. If you want to have a reasoned discussion, I’m all ears, though.

So if we want real social progress, real increasing of the common good, we gotta stop with these extremist rhetorical tactics. We gotta stop giving voice and support for bad history rewrites and fallacious generalizations, however well intentioned it may be. We gotta stop vilifying people—today and in history—based solely on skin color or their not being activists against the prevailing social systems. We gotta be honest about what the data say and where we have insufficient data, we need to 1) have humility to acknowledge that (and not fill in the gaps with our prejudice) and 2) work to get better data. Case in point is policing in the US—we need better data/transparency to make more informed decisions about how and what to change. 

Everything is not about race. It just isn’t. And trying to make everything about it is not progress. It is not advancing social justice. It is simply hardening hearts, on both sides of the aisle. We may have underemphasized its impact and role in the past, but “correcting” that by a corresponding error of overemphasizing it now is not a winning strategy. And, we also have other real, serious issues to face—as a country, states, locally, AND as a Church. 

And as for the Church (which ought to be the focus here, given it was America magazine interviewing a priest!), to make racism THE issue of the Church would be a great reduction of what the Church is, why Christ founded it. The Church exists to help souls to eternal life with God, starting here in this life. I guarandamntee that buying into the cultural moment’s emphasis on racism is not why Christ died. He did not, even, die for social justice in general. He died BECAUSE of our sin—the fundamental and greatest injustice of preferring ourselves to Him, to heal that wound, primarily and pre-eminently on a spiritual level. And because we are embodied beings, that healing should have real-world, this-life consequences, among which are, indeed, healing the wounds of racism. 

Fr. Massingale is right—if a Catholic harbors racism in his heart, that is wholly incompatible with the Gospel and needs to be dealt with. If we refuse to do the good plainly before us, that too would be a moral failure. But let us not de facto equate resisting what is—at best—a very mixed bag of a social movement with such failings. To make our primary focus “racism” and fixing what remains to be fixed in that area is an example of the danger of particularity I wrote about here: https://www.churchsacrificial.com/the-danger-of-particularity/. Another example, just to ruffle some feathers on the other side of the political spectrum, is the practically exhaustive focus on criminalizing abortion, or, say, the promotion of sexual chastity. All of these are pressing moral matters of great import facing our society today, but they are not THE issue that every last one of us has to be inordinately preoccupied with in order to be “good Catholics.” Having the “wrong” opinion on how to pursue these does not ipso facto make one a “bad Catholic,” either.

For any Catholic to insist that we must make these particular things THE MOST IMPORTANT THING for the whole Church is, at best, putting the cart before the horse. Our primary focus is precisely what Christ told us: Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. Helping people to do that is always and everywhere the primary mission of the Church. And by virtue of Her doing that, she also inescapably follows the second greatest commandment: love your neighbor, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “in God and because of God.”

I can’t help but think of Christ’s counsel to Martha: “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41) This is not to say that we have no social moral responsibility—obviously—but it is a counter to the prevailing political-activist mentality that has become so prevalent in the Church, which is itself a manifestation of being more conformed to this world than to Christ (see Rom 12:2).

God will guide us into the actions that we need to undertake (Eph 2:10), but we should first and always foremost be people who keep our focus and priority on conforming our own selves more and more to Christ, through prayer and worship. When our hearts, minds, and wills are conformed to God’s, we will do the good works he has prepared for us. As we seek God diligently, he will reveal to us those areas in our lives that may need amendment. And, as opposed to artificially imposed from without as a generalization for all Catholics (or all Catholics of a certain color, or all Catholics of a certain political persuasion), this revealing will always be infallible and absolutely and utterly applicable for each person, coming as it does from the Holy Spirit’s action in each individual believer’s life.

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom 12:1-2) This clarity comes through our continual prayerful worship.

I pray God that we will as the people of God regain the urgency first and above all else to seek God (Matt 6:33) without ceasing in prayer—as bishops, as priests, as religious, and as lay persons. This exhortation (1 Thess 5:17) applies equally to all. May we never prioritize social activism over, nor think it is more worthwhile or important than, a genuine and enduring life of prayer.

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!

Letter to Editor: Potential Formation of GSA at Fannin County High School

This is the text of a letter I sent to our local News Observer newspaper. There has been some controversy recently about a proposed GSA. I felt I had to respond to try to clarify what I believe are misrepresentations of Christian understanding in this area. It was published in the 30 October 2019 edition.

---


-->

Dear Editor & Fellow Subscribers:

I read with concern the letter by Lane Bishop about the proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Fannin County High School, as well as the following letters by John Sugg and Rebecca McKevitt. While I agree that many Christians have (and still do) unjustly discriminate against those with homosexual tendencies, that does not mean there is not a just discrimination in these matters. We need to discriminate having deep-seated homosexual attraction from acting on it. It’s not a sin to experience homosexual attraction. It would be a sin to act on that attraction.

Mr. Sugg is right to point out that there are plenty of other sexual sins, and that we ought to have an equal concern to avoid those and to speak against them as the occasion presents itself. However, he is wrong to suggest that because Christ did not use the term “homosexuality” that He never spoke about it and thus somehow considered our sexuality and sexual behavior unimportant compared to other concerns like social justice. It’s not an either-or proposition. We are called to personal holiness and also to charity. The two cannot rightly be separated.

Christ did in fact touch on the topic of sexuality and marriage explicitly. Anyone who reads the words of Christ (for example, Matt 5:27-32) can see that He clearly presumes heterosexual relations when speaking of sex and marriage. And when the Pharisees tested Him in Matt 19, He said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (ESV)

So it is very clear that Jesus has a “traditional” view of sexuality and marriage and that marriage from the Christian point of view is between one man and one woman. It’s clear that no matter our subjective experience of our sexuality, that God has a definite purpose and plan in mind for human sexuality. We are male or female, and as far as sex is concerned, it’s intended to be expressed exclusively within a lifelong male-female mutual self-giving with openness towards the blessing of children. That is Christian marriage.

Mr. Sugg also rightly points out that we do not observe all of the Hebraic Law as recorded in the Old Testament, but that does not free us to willy-nilly choose our own morality. Most Christians make a distinction between ritual and moral law. Ritual law is always changeable, but moral law is immutable. And while the temporal (here and now) punishment for a given sin is changeable, changing or even removing the temporal punishment does not entail changing something that was morally illicit into something now morally licit.

As Christians, no matter what our stripe, we consider the entirety of Scripture to be the Word of God, not only the words of Christ. And all Christians up until very, very recently (historically speaking) have well understood that homosexual behavior is sinful, as is all extramarital sexual activity. That’s because Scripture is clear on the matter, as is Christian Tradition. Just because it may be possible to re-interpret Scripture to suit contemporary sensibilities does not make such eisegesis as viable an interpretation as what the Christian Church has held since day one. I have no doubt that the many pastors today who are complicit in misleading their flocks on this will be called to account on the day of judgment. (Jas 3:1)

None of this justifies hatred or mistreatment of those who believe they are or may be homosexuals. Proverbs 6:16ff names seven things that are an abomination to the Lord. A proud look. A lying tongue. A heart that devises wicked plans. And so on. I am sure most of us have been guilty of such sins and many others, and we no more deserve mistreatment or special condemnation than those who act on homosexual inclinations. The Good News is that Christ came to redeem us all, for all have sinned and fallen short of our calling to holiness. The right response to sin is repentance and throwing ourselves on the mercy of God, and urging others to do likewise. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are saved.

We need not fear having a GSA at our high school, should one be formed. As parents, if we’re doing our job right, our children will clearly know right from wrong in this area (which includes not mistreating those who are different from us). If we are counting on public schools to teach our children our morals, I think we will be in for a rude awakening. Especially at the high school age, we need to be equipping our children to bravely encounter a world that is often at odds with our morals and now more than ever needs strong, loving Christians who can compassionately share the truth of the Gospel without exchanging truth for a lie.

Sincerely,

J. Ambrose Little

Epworth

Why People Love False Christianity

Photo Courtesy of https://www.pinterest.com/pin/13792342584492054/

I awoke this morning to this headline: Why People Hate Religion. Oh boy. So in the spirit of the headline, though admittedly with far less clickbait power, I am writing about why people so love false Christianity.

You see, it’s because it doesn’t challenge them. It doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable. It doesn’t call them to repentance. It tells them that whatever they already believe and whatever they feel is good and to be embraced. It tells them that if something or someone challenges them, then that thing/person is to be shunned as evil.

The religion this guy suggests is precisely that flavor of “Christianity.” “I’m okay. You’re okay. As long as you’re not a Trump supporter, or even a social conservative.” “Jesus was just this nice guy, ya know?” It is a reductionism of Christianity to secular humanism—using religious terminology that is void of theological and soteriological content. Just “be nice and be nice to people” is all this version of Christianity demands, which is all that secular humanism calls for.

The NYT article author, Timothy Egan, says, ‘Archbishop Thompson says he tries to be “Christ-centered” in his decisions. If so, he should cite words from Christ condemning homosexuality, any words; there are none.’

Oh really. How about Matt 19:3ff:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (emphasis mine)

In Christ’s only explicit teaching about marriage, he very clearly says that it is a lifelong, sexually exclusive union of male and female. If Christ were the sexually-progressive person our contemporaries try to make him out to be, he surely would have been careful to avoid being clear that Divinely-instituted marriage is between a man and a woman. (And not only that, that "binary" sexuality is also of Divine origin.)

But let’s not stop there, because the suggestion to "cite words from Christ” for any Christian teaching is fabulously ignorant on its face. While on this planet, Jesus went to great lengths to make it clear that he considers himself to be the eternal Son of God, as Pope Benedict XVI so compellingly showed in his wonderful book, Jesus of Nazareth. And that has been unalterable Christian dogma since the beginning of our Faith. (It was precisely this claim that got him into such hot water with his Jewish contemporaries.)

Christ is, as the beginning of the Gospel of John makes evident, the eternal Word of God. Christian theologians have ruminated on this doctrine since the earliest times, and why that is particularly significant, in our context here, is that the entire canon of Christian Scripture is “The Word of God.” This means, through simple, syllogistic logic, that the entire canon of Scripture is "words from Christ." Christ, being the eternal and incarnate Word of God, therefore speaks directly through all of our Scriptures—not just the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. And there is plenty in the Word of God about sexual morals (including about homosexuality but by no means limited to it), all pointing toward what Christ was saying—that our sexuality is only rightly expressed within the bounds of that lifelong union of man and woman.

Simply put, if you do not believe that Christ is the eternally-begotten Son and Word of God, you are not a Christian. End of story. There can be no debate on this point. You can cite the words from Christ all you want, but you do not hold the Christian faith.

Furthermore, that same Word of God teaches that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That same Word of God teaches that Christ anointed his apostles with the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22-3). That same Word of God (in John 16:13), quotes Christ telling those same Apostles that when he did give them the Holy Spirit (by breathing on them as recorded in John 20), that the Spirit would lead them into all truth--even after Christ in his human person left the Earth. That same Word of God is where we find Christ anointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church and conferring on him the power of loosing and binding (Matt 18:18-19).

And so, not only is the truth from Christ expressed in more than just the "words from Christ" attributed to him in the Gospels in Scripture, that truth is also to be found in the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. It is in that Church--when submitting ourselves to the authority granted by Christ to his apostles--that we are led into all truth through the charism given by Christ to the apostles and their successors. It is in the Church that we can rightly understand the Word of Christ, the Eternal Word of God.

And so we come to the teaching of the Church, which is supremely clear on these matters, not only on matters of morality (sexual or otherwise) but also on what the content of the Christian faith itself is. All of this is comprehensively but approachably explained in the Church's Catechism. Our bishops, with all their warts and flaws (some of which are direly serious), are our pastors, our shepherds. Under the headship of Peter's successor, they are the inheritors (not due to their own personal holiness but due to their office imparted by the laying on of hands) of the Apostolic charisms that Christ imparted, and it is in our union with those successors of the Apostles that we find the fullness of the Christian faith.

All of that is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that when judging what is or is not the Christian faith, and judging what is or is not part of the Christian approach to morality, one can't just consult the quoted words of Christ. Egan's version of Christianity is wholly insufficient and, in places, just plain wrong, especially in his following the notion of "be nice" as our primary guiding principle.

To be fair, he is right in some respects, as well. Part of Christian morality is to help the weak and the poor. (One can't help but wonder if he'd extend that principle of help of the weak to the not-yet-born.) He and the sister he quotes are right, in as much as our guiding light in the humanitarian work that we do is that we recognize the image of God in each person--no matter what condition they are in, no matter their developmental stage, no matter their mental or physical capabilities.

But in criticizing Christians for standing by the morals of the Faith that are not in line with popular secular culture, he is dead wrong. Perhaps the most fundamental principle of the Christian faith is the universal call to holiness. We are all called to be holy all throughout Scripture--it is the overarching theme. We are all called to repent from our sins and conform ourselves to the will of God (Romans 12:1-2). We know the will of God by his revealing it to us in creation, in His person, in Scripture, and within the guidance of His Church. Just being whomever we find ourselves to be is not a Christian way of life; it is the way of the world. No matter what our sins and inclinations are, we are called to take up our cross and follow Christ--and God gives us the grace to do that, especially through the Sacraments, especially through baptism, confession and reconciliation, and the Eucharist.

This personal, individual, on-going conversion is so often overlooked, particularly by those who want to change Christianity to fit our popular culture today. The Christian faith is completely opposed to the notion that whatever we feel, whatever we are inclined to do, is OK as long as it is not harmful to others. Furthermore, our Faith is wholly opposed to the notion that harm means challenging someone, that is, telling someone that, "no, 'you do you' is not OK," that there are in fact objective morals and objective truth, a standard of living to which all are called, no matter what our genetics and upbringing and social context, that we are all bound to respond to that universal call to holiness as best as we are able.

Sure, we Christians can and often do screw up, both in our responding to the call as well as in how we communicate it, but the call remains. And we are bound, as Christians, to share the whole Gospel--not just the parts that feel good and are acceptable to our contemporary cultures. We are bound to help the poor and weak and also correct the sinner, in addition to doing our best to conform our own selves to God.