On Our Cultural Failings

Thank you to Fr Hans Jacobse for his recent essay (Catholic Online: The Republic is Finished and the America We Knew is Gone) and for the many thoughtful comments it has inspired.

As to whether or not the latest decision of the SCOTUS supporting the constitutionality of the Patient Affordability Act is the end of the Republic or not I can’t say. If however our’ Republic is rooted in virtue understood as the fruit of human obedience to Natural Law then this needn’t be the end. In fact since virtue grows best in adversity I see this as a potentially good thing since it might inspire just the moral awakening and cultural renewal that America needs.  On the other hand, if our Republic is not really and truly rooted in virtue and obedience to “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” then we are better off for the loss and of our pretense to being a virtuous and “almost chosen people.”

Contrary to what some might want to believe, the Public Square and American culture were not taken by the forces of moral corruption. Rather I think we are where we are as a People became we became complacent, we withdrew from the Public Square and the culture. We forget that vice is not a real thing but the absence of virtue, of those habits of thought and action that make human flourishing possible.

Vice never wins. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

The HSS Contraception Mandate, Part 1: The Catholic Bishops’ Response

Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil.

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae  no. 74

The  Immorality of the HSS Mandate. The Obama administration will now require employers through their health insurance program provide artificial contraceptive drugs and devices. “Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover” these services “without cost sharing for women across the country.” According to the press release from the Department of Health and Human Services:

Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage.

While the current “rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services” after August 1, 2013, religiously based employers “do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan” will be required to do so or face significant fines.  “This additional year,” HSS says is to “allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.” In the interim, “employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”

Along with other religious and non-religious groups from both the political left and right, the US Catholic bishops have objected to the HSS mandate arguing, among other things, that mandate is a violation of religious freedom. In addition, the argument goes, the mandate is unjust because it requires that employers engage in activities (for example, early term abortion) that are contrary to the Christian tradition and natural law (you can read the whole text here).  It is this second objection that is central to understanding the objections of the Catholic Church to the policy. Merely asking employers who object to stand, as one commentator put the matter, “several steps removed” from providing contraceptive drugs misses the point of the Catholic Church’s objection. The State has no right to require any citizen or institution, religious or not, to support financially contraception and abortion.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I will leave to others the economic arguments against the possibility providing drugs for free. Others have addressed that better than I (see here). My concern here is on the philosophical and theological arguments made by the Catholic bishops. While we ought not to minimize the Constitutional arguments against the mandate, as we will see the Catholic bishops are a deeper and broader argument grounded.

In later essay, I want to raise address the moral status of artificial contraception in the Orthodox Church.  The mandate and the arguments both for and against it hinge in part of the morality of the required services. The patristic evidence is clearly opposed to what today we would call artificial contraception (J. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, First Edition. Belknap Press; Enlarged ed edition,1965). The Church’s liturgical tradition sees children as divine blessing not only for the couple themselves but also for the “for the continuation of the [human] race” (Rite of Betrothal). And in the marriage service the priests asks that God grant the newly married couple “ the fruit of the womb, fair offspring, concord of soul and body” as they “may be expedient” for the couples salvation and earthly happiness (Rite of Crowning).

But seen in light of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, the Catholic bishops are correct in their assertion that the mandate reflects a faulty understanding of human biology and so anthropology. Unlike other mandated service that actually “prevent disease[s]” such as high blood pressure or cancer, the HSS mandate does not. It rather works to prevent the normal, healthy function of the human body. To do this, the government treats pregnancy as a disease. But “pregnancy is not a disease” and in fact represents the proper functioning of the human body. It is simply wrong to think of contraception in terms of disease prevention. But again, I’m getting ahead of myself.

So, let’s return to what else the Catholic bishops had to say. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

An Orthodox Christian Witness in the Public Square

More and more I think that, on Christological grounds, we can’t proclaim the Gospel if we absent ourselves from the Public Square. St Matthew, for example, is clear. The birth of Jesus has political implications. The Person of Jesus Christ—and the proclamation of His Gospel—is necessarily and rightly a direct challenge to Caesar’s authority. This is how the Orthodox Church expressed the matter in her liturgical life:

When Augustus reigned alone on the earth, the many kingdoms of mankind came to an end; and when you became man from the pure Virgin, the many gods of idolatry were destroyed; the cities of the world passed under one single rule; and the nations came to believe in one single Godhead; the peoples were enrolled by decree of Caesar; we the faithful were enrolled in the name of the Godhead, when you became man, O our God. Great is your mercy, Lord; glory to you! (Vesperal hymn for Christmas)

The many kingdoms of this world have come to an end. Their power has been broken and they too are accountable to God. They are no more free to violate His commandments then is the individual.  Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

National Catholic Reporter: Exclusive interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput

In his interview with John Allen, “Archbishop Charles Chaput, Pope Benedict XVI‘s choice as the new chief shepherd of the embattled Archdiocese of Philadelphia” makes a number of interesting observations. Here are some of them.  Allen’s questions are in bold, Chaput’s answers are in block quotes.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

You mentioned a speech you gave to the priests of Philadelphia in 2005. In that address, you said that a priest is ‘unavoidably a leader, not a facilitator or coordinator of dialogue.’ Presumably you didn’t mean dialogue is unimportant?

You can’t lead unless you first enter into dialogue with people. My point was that a priest can’t just be a man of dialogue and consensus, because at some point he also has to lead.

When you say you want to lead the church back to a clear embrace of the Gospel, it implies there’s a lack of clarity somewhere. Where do you see it?

In my own personal life, first of all. I’m not always faithful to what the Gospel tells me to do. I’m a sinner, like everyone. If that’s true about me and about other individuals, it’s also true about our communal life. In some sense, the church is always going back to the teachings of Jesus. It’s not that we’re going backwards, but we’re going to our foundations and sources, which are the gospels and the traditions of the church.

When I say ‘go back,’ I don’t mean there’s some pristine time we should try to recapture. I mean that we always depart from our sources, and then try to embody them in the context of contemporary society. There’s nothing about the Gospel that I’m ashamed of, or that I think we are free to discard. We have to embrace all of it.

It seems important to you to be engaged with currents of thought outside the church.

Absolutely. That’s what evangelization is about, trying to see the best of the world around us and to show how the Gospel makes it better and richer, and how the Gospel at the same time corrects it and purifies it. There’s no way the Gospel can embrace and purify the world unless it knows the world.

Read the rest: Exclusive interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput.

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

The Church & the Civil Society

Be they Orthodox or not, readers of Christos Yannaras’ The Freedom of Morality should be forgiven in assuming that he see the Church as somehow hermetically sealed off from the larger society.  He doesn’t even if his polemic against the West suggests otherwise.  While he would not have us “overlook the great personal trail faced by each Christian within the framework of our modern consumer way of life” it is not “the passage from a rural society to a technological one or the particular way in which modern ‘developed’ societies are structured” that accounts for our general personal and communal failure to realize a way of life that is free and distinctively human.

Again contrary to his anti-Western, and specifically anti-Catholic polemics, our failure reflects nothing more or less than human sinfulness.  It is personal human sinfulness, that is, our own personal refusal “to realize [our own] personal distinctiveness and freedom” that has caused “the Christian churches today” to remain “mute in the realm of social affairs” (p. 226).  So what then should we do? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

An Editorial: Orthodoxy & the Public Square

Recently Frank Schaeffer posted an editorial on Huffington Post (“Catholic Bishops Ignore Their Own Sins While Telling Us What To Do” that, among other things, argues that natural law, “is just another way to impose one group’s ideology on other groups and is as arbitrary, limited and nuts as any other theory of law that claims absolute moral superiority over all other theories.”  Along the way to making this argument, Schaeffer criticizes the Catholic Church (who he defamed as “the world’s best organized pedophile network”–evidently he hasn’t heard of NAMBL, National Association of Man and Boy Lovers or, for that matter, or read his own fellow bloggers at Huffington Post, “Polanski’s Arrest: Shame on the Swiss”), the signers of the Manhattan Declaration (all of whom did so because they are “eager to take a shot at our first black president”), his father (the late Francis Schaeffer) and Princeton professor and natural law advocate, Robert George.  As Schaeffer points out,

it’s worth noting that George is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. George-The-Moralizer, who wants to roll back Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a 13th century adaptation of Greek philosophy that’s being used as a cover for imposing unreconstructed Protestant fundamentalism on our diverse country, is a member of a denomination that has consistently collaborated with anti-democratic forces of all sorts from Bloody Mary up to and including dictators like Mussolini, Franco and Hitler.

Glutton for punishment that I am, I read Frank Schaeffer’s piece as well the 10 or so comments that were there.  I also read George’s response (“Natural Law” and “far right Reconstructionist extremism!“). I’ve linked to both of them, I’d encourage you to read both and make your own judgment. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 8.0/10 (6 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)