Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
The Supreme Court Ruling: End of an Error?
Back in January, 2012 I first wrote on the announced HHS mandate. It was an appalling realization that our government actually preferred to place its ideology over the freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution and was willing to force their decision.
In the 2 1/2 years since I wrote about this violation of the Constitution, we've witnessed the Church vilified because she stood up against the kulturkampf by the state and the cultural elites.
This morning, we heard from the Supreme Court. I admit that I was surprised. After the Court's position on the defense of marriage, I wasn't expecting a just ruling.
But we got one. So, now we can relax, right?
Not quite yet. The ruling answered some of our concerns, but the role of Church run universities, hospitals, charities, and self-insured Catholic businesses is still in question. Catholic religious orders, institutions and businesses still have concerns to be addressed.
Also the ruling was based on the RFRA, not the Constitution. So if a future Supreme Court strikes it down, what we have we can lose. Remember DOMA was struck down, and judges across the country are using that bad decision to overturn laws protecting traditional marriage
As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
That means continuing to pray and continuing to work—in the short term for just decisions. In the long term for conversion of America.
There's no time to be slacking off. This is where our work begins, not ends.
The Supreme Court Ruling: End of an Error?
Back in January, 2012 I first wrote on the announced HHS mandate. It was an appalling realization that our government actually preferred to place its ideology over the freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution and was willing to force their decision.
In the 2 1/2 years since I wrote about this violation of the Constitution, we've witnessed the Church vilified because she stood up against the kulturkampf by the state and the cultural elites.
This morning, we heard from the Supreme Court. I admit that I was surprised. After the Court's position on the defense of marriage, I wasn't expecting a just ruling.
But we got one. So, now we can relax, right?
Not quite yet. The ruling answered some of our concerns, but the role of Church run universities, hospitals, charities, and self-insured Catholic businesses is still in question. Catholic religious orders, institutions and businesses still have concerns to be addressed.
Also the ruling was based on the RFRA, not the Constitution. So if a future Supreme Court strikes it down, what we have we can lose. Remember DOMA was struck down, and judges across the country are using that bad decision to overturn laws protecting traditional marriage
As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
That means continuing to pray and continuing to work—in the short term for just decisions. In the long term for conversion of America.
There's no time to be slacking off. This is where our work begins, not ends.
Monday, January 6, 2014
It Is Really That Painfully Simple
But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
Because if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enough to show him that it was wrong. But while ignorance may excuse the man, it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself. If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong. It is really that painfully simple. (Canticle for Liebowitz, p296)
The Obama administration argues that those religious nonprofit groups that object to the contraception mandate only have to sign a form showing their objections and let the insurer provide the coverage directly instead.
They can't understand why we Catholics object.
The fact is, if it is wrong for us to do, it is wrong for us to get another to do it in our place.
The supposed compromises are no compromises. It may confuse those improperly educated in the faith. It may provide a deception to the wrongly formed conscience. But it remains wrong, and because we know it to be wrong, it is painfully simple. As St. Peter said, we must obey God rather than man because what man decrees is against what God commands.
It Is Really That Painfully Simple
But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
Because if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enough to show him that it was wrong. But while ignorance may excuse the man, it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself. If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong. It is really that painfully simple. (Canticle for Liebowitz, p296)
The Obama administration argues that those religious nonprofit groups that object to the contraception mandate only have to sign a form showing their objections and let the insurer provide the coverage directly instead.
They can't understand why we Catholics object.
The fact is, if it is wrong for us to do, it is wrong for us to get another to do it in our place.
The supposed compromises are no compromises. It may confuse those improperly educated in the faith. It may provide a deception to the wrongly formed conscience. But it remains wrong, and because we know it to be wrong, it is painfully simple. As St. Peter said, we must obey God rather than man because what man decrees is against what God commands.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
TFTD: Corporations Have No Rights?
On the CNN newsfeed, I saw an editorial claiming that individuals have rights but corporations do not. Therefore corporations like Hobby Lobby should not be able to get an exemption from the mandated contraception/abortion coverage since such rights only extend to the individual practice of religion -- which the author seems to interpret as worship.
But that's too narrow. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The key words in this case are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The free exercise of religion involves all aspects of a person's life... including the right to go into business.
If corporations founded by religious believers may not be run according to the religious convictions they hold, this is a restriction on the free exercise of religion.
Moreover, if religion is merely a right of individuals, then it follows that freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition of grievances are also individual rights. That means organized social justice groups, the New York Times, unions and organized protests are also restricted.
That means Elizabeth B. Wydra has the individual right to opine on religious freedom but neither CNN (which published the linked article) nor the group she represents has that right.
Ridiculous? Of course. But that is what follows from her argument.
What we have here is not an appeal to reasonable constitutional law. We have partisan behavior seeking to abuse the laws and courts to compel a group to support a behavior the author approves of but they oppose.
Usually we call that fascism.
TFTD: Corporations Have No Rights?
On the CNN newsfeed, I saw an editorial claiming that individuals have rights but corporations do not. Therefore corporations like Hobby Lobby should not be able to get an exemption from the mandated contraception/abortion coverage since such rights only extend to the individual practice of religion -- which the author seems to interpret as worship.
But that's too narrow. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The key words in this case are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The free exercise of religion involves all aspects of a person's life... including the right to go into business.
If corporations founded by religious believers may not be run according to the religious convictions they hold, this is a restriction on the free exercise of religion.
Moreover, if religion is merely a right of individuals, then it follows that freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition of grievances are also individual rights. That means organized social justice groups, the New York Times, unions and organized protests are also restricted.
That means Elizabeth B. Wydra has the individual right to opine on religious freedom but neither CNN (which published the linked article) nor the group she represents has that right.
Ridiculous? Of course. But that is what follows from her argument.
What we have here is not an appeal to reasonable constitutional law. We have partisan behavior seeking to abuse the laws and courts to compel a group to support a behavior the author approves of but they oppose.
Usually we call that fascism.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Fallacy of Special Pleading
One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading. Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.
Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion? Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy"). Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony. It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position. It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.
Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy. The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it. The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage. Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity. We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.
The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement. Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life. If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything. Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like? Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?
Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense. Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.
The Fallacy of Special Pleading
One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading. Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.
Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion? Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy"). Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony. It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position. It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.
Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy. The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it. The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage. Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity. We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.
The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement. Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life. If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything. Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like? Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?
Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense. Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Church and State
Introduction
If one wants to be consistent in arguing the "Separation of Church and State," reason requires that we point out the fact that one cannot keep the Church out of the State without keeping the State out of the Church as well. The problem is this is increasingly ignored by the Federal Government.
Christianity, in following Christ's command to “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17) recognizes that the State has certain areas of authority granted to it for the common good and the protection of the people and that the people are required to give obedience to the authority in these matters. However, Christians are also required to give obedience to God in matters which concern Him and the State has no authority to oppose or interfere with these commands.
Thus the state can pass laws which provide for the protection and benefit of the population. For example, it can collect taxes (though not excessively) to make it possible to carry out its duties. It can set traffic laws for the protection of the people. There is nothing sacred about driving on the right or the left side of the road, but the government mandates one to avoid the danger of head-on collisions. The government can set laws concerning military service for the defense of the nation. There is nothing unreasonable about this as a general principle, though one can certainly judge how the state carries this out (such as a fair conscription in times of national emergency vs. an arbitrary "press gang").
However, the state does not have the authority to mandate what is to be morally acceptable. nor to force religions to participate in things that they find morally repugnant. The state cannot justly compel Jews and Muslims to eat Pork, nor to force them to provide it for others for example.
The State Cannot Pass Laws outside its Competence or Area of Authority
In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, we have an exchange between Thomas Cromwell and St. Thomas More concerning King Henry VII and his Act of Supremacy declaring him the head of the Church in England. Thomas Cromwell attempts to reason that since More does not know the state of the souls who did sign and he does know he has a duty of obedience to the King, he should therefore sign his assent to the Act. However, St. Thomas More points out:
Some men think the Earth is round and others think it is flat. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign. (Page 133).
St. Thomas More's point is a good one. There are some things the state does not have the authority to declare. Regardless of what the State declares, if it is contrary to what is reality, such a law is meaningless and is nothing more than the state trying to tell people what to think or to do… tyranny.
The State has No Authority to Compel Compliance with an Unjust Law
Let's take another angle. In the (admittedly mediocre) movie CSA: Confederate States of America, one of the premises is that the victorious South, in attempting to bring the conquered North into its way of life, creates a quandary. A reconstruction tax is to be imposed on the conquered Northerners. However, this tax can be avoided by the purchase of a slave. It leaves the northerners with three choices:
- To purchase a slave.
- To pay the ruinous taxes.
- To leave the country.
The movie shows that the intent of the law is for people to choose option #1 to remove a cultural barrier between the North and the South. Most Northerners do choose option #1, with a minority choosing option #3. The viewer is supposed to recognize that all three of the choices are unjust. Slavery is wrong, and the person who recognizes it as being wrong should not be forced into ruinous taxes or exile.
Both Violations Exist in America in 2012
It is interesting that people can see the problem in the movie, but not see that a very real version is happening right now in America. With the HHS mandate for example, employers with religious beliefs that tell them that contraception and abortifacients are morally wrong are put in the same quandary. Failing to provide contraception/abortifacient coverage in their health care plans results in a fine which can equal $100 per employee per day. It is estimated that the Evangelical owned "Hobby Lobby" could potentially have to pay up to $1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to comply with the HHS mandate.
In other words, the company has these options:
- To comply with what they believe to be immoral.
- To pay ruinous fines.
- To stop doing business in America.
Christians are not Imposing their Beliefs on Others when they Defend their own Rights
Now the examples of A Man for All Seasons and CSA bring out two important facts. First, that a government which seeks to mandate what is morally acceptable has no authority to do so, and second, when it seeks to coerce acceptance of such a mandate, it is behaving tyrannically and exceeds its authority.
Remembering this is important where supporters of the government's policies are labeling Christians as being intolerant and imposing views on others. The First Amendment points out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So the employer with religious beliefs which tells him or her that providing insurance coverage for contraception or abortifacients is wrong has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in regards to the interference with the free exercise of religion. The government does not have the right to restrict these freedoms. Religious believers have the right to object to and challenge the HHS mandate and do not impose their views on others in doing so.
Nor do we impose our views on others when we seek to instruct voters as to why certain government policies are unjust and seek to encourage the passage of laws that overturn the injustices. Our nation was founded on this principle, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The irony is, it is the religious believers seeking to defend their rights declared in the Declaration and the Constitution are unjustly accused of violating these rights, while those who do or favor the actual violations are treated as the victims.
Our objection to the unjust Laws, Mandates and Court Rulings is not out of opposition to the democratic process, but is out of opposition to the imposition of something the government has no right to impose in the first place and has no right to coerce our compliance with unjust sanctions.
Church and State
Introduction
If one wants to be consistent in arguing the "Separation of Church and State," reason requires that we point out the fact that one cannot keep the Church out of the State without keeping the State out of the Church as well. The problem is this is increasingly ignored by the Federal Government.
Christianity, in following Christ's command to “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17) recognizes that the State has certain areas of authority granted to it for the common good and the protection of the people and that the people are required to give obedience to the authority in these matters. However, Christians are also required to give obedience to God in matters which concern Him and the State has no authority to oppose or interfere with these commands.
Thus the state can pass laws which provide for the protection and benefit of the population. For example, it can collect taxes (though not excessively) to make it possible to carry out its duties. It can set traffic laws for the protection of the people. There is nothing sacred about driving on the right or the left side of the road, but the government mandates one to avoid the danger of head-on collisions. The government can set laws concerning military service for the defense of the nation. There is nothing unreasonable about this as a general principle, though one can certainly judge how the state carries this out (such as a fair conscription in times of national emergency vs. an arbitrary "press gang").
However, the state does not have the authority to mandate what is to be morally acceptable. nor to force religions to participate in things that they find morally repugnant. The state cannot justly compel Jews and Muslims to eat Pork, nor to force them to provide it for others for example.
The State Cannot Pass Laws outside its Competence or Area of Authority
In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, we have an exchange between Thomas Cromwell and St. Thomas More concerning King Henry VII and his Act of Supremacy declaring him the head of the Church in England. Thomas Cromwell attempts to reason that since More does not know the state of the souls who did sign and he does know he has a duty of obedience to the King, he should therefore sign his assent to the Act. However, St. Thomas More points out:
Some men think the Earth is round and others think it is flat. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign. (Page 133).
St. Thomas More's point is a good one. There are some things the state does not have the authority to declare. Regardless of what the State declares, if it is contrary to what is reality, such a law is meaningless and is nothing more than the state trying to tell people what to think or to do… tyranny.
The State has No Authority to Compel Compliance with an Unjust Law
Let's take another angle. In the (admittedly mediocre) movie CSA: Confederate States of America, one of the premises is that the victorious South, in attempting to bring the conquered North into its way of life, creates a quandary. A reconstruction tax is to be imposed on the conquered Northerners. However, this tax can be avoided by the purchase of a slave. It leaves the northerners with three choices:
- To purchase a slave.
- To pay the ruinous taxes.
- To leave the country.
The movie shows that the intent of the law is for people to choose option #1 to remove a cultural barrier between the North and the South. Most Northerners do choose option #1, with a minority choosing option #3. The viewer is supposed to recognize that all three of the choices are unjust. Slavery is wrong, and the person who recognizes it as being wrong should not be forced into ruinous taxes or exile.
Both Violations Exist in America in 2012
It is interesting that people can see the problem in the movie, but not see that a very real version is happening right now in America. With the HHS mandate for example, employers with religious beliefs that tell them that contraception and abortifacients are morally wrong are put in the same quandary. Failing to provide contraception/abortifacient coverage in their health care plans results in a fine which can equal $100 per employee per day. It is estimated that the Evangelical owned "Hobby Lobby" could potentially have to pay up to $1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to comply with the HHS mandate.
In other words, the company has these options:
- To comply with what they believe to be immoral.
- To pay ruinous fines.
- To stop doing business in America.
Christians are not Imposing their Beliefs on Others when they Defend their own Rights
Now the examples of A Man for All Seasons and CSA bring out two important facts. First, that a government which seeks to mandate what is morally acceptable has no authority to do so, and second, when it seeks to coerce acceptance of such a mandate, it is behaving tyrannically and exceeds its authority.
Remembering this is important where supporters of the government's policies are labeling Christians as being intolerant and imposing views on others. The First Amendment points out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So the employer with religious beliefs which tells him or her that providing insurance coverage for contraception or abortifacients is wrong has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in regards to the interference with the free exercise of religion. The government does not have the right to restrict these freedoms. Religious believers have the right to object to and challenge the HHS mandate and do not impose their views on others in doing so.
Nor do we impose our views on others when we seek to instruct voters as to why certain government policies are unjust and seek to encourage the passage of laws that overturn the injustices. Our nation was founded on this principle, as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The irony is, it is the religious believers seeking to defend their rights declared in the Declaration and the Constitution are unjustly accused of violating these rights, while those who do or favor the actual violations are treated as the victims.
Our objection to the unjust Laws, Mandates and Court Rulings is not out of opposition to the democratic process, but is out of opposition to the imposition of something the government has no right to impose in the first place and has no right to coerce our compliance with unjust sanctions.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
American Kulturkampf
The 19th century Kulturkampf (literally Culture War or Culture Struggle) of Germany is an important event to consider for 21st century America because of what it was – the transformation of hostility towards Catholicism into an attempt by the government to control and limit the Church. I believe it is important to be aware of what happened then because, unlike other historical events, this one can be duplicated.
Preliminary Note
This is not an "Obama = Hitler" article. I don't approve of that meme. Obama is Obama. Hitler is Hitler. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent actions depended on attitudes and political conditions not found in America. Hitler was an extreme German nationalist who believed in a strong Germanic volk at the expense of other peoples and nations. Obama appears to believe that his policies will benefit all people, but "right wingers" are trying to block his policies.
In contrast, the current Kulturkampf is an event which began before Obama, and may continue after he has left office. Obama is certainly taking part in the Kulturkampf, but it does not depend on him.
What Was the Kulturkampf?
The Kulturkampf arose in 19th century Germany from an attitude from different factions of society which believed Catholicism was harmful to a strong Germany. Specifically it was a combination of the nationalist state, nominal Catholics and certain hostile Protestants. This hostility began at a time when the Catholic Church in Germany was awakening the morals of German Catholics. The factions in question made accusations of the Church interfering in politics and of intolerance – of trying to impose their values on others. They were accused of being enemies of progress.
Basically, it was assumed that Catholicism was in opposition to what was "right." Therefore, for the good of the people, Catholicism had to be opposed.
The attacks began with trying to change public opinion to assume that the Catholic teachings were unnatural. Isolated scandals were portrayed as the norm for the Church. The clergy was treated as predatory, controlling and heartless to the concerns of the people. It was argued that the Church had no right to teach as she did and needed to change.
Once the state became involved we began to see attempts through law to target the Church. It was argued certain Catholic institutions were not protected under the concept of the freedom of religion. Gradually, attempts were made to remove Church control from their properties, instituting fines against Catholics that did not comply with demands of the State and fines against churches which spoke out against the wrongdoing of the state from the pulpit.
Eventually it got to the point where the state demanded the right to choose who would fill Church positions, often preventing these positions from being filled. Bishops and priests were jailed for refusing to comply.
Essentially, the Kulturkampf was an attempt to silence the Church and limit her when her activities did not serve the state.
Similarities to Today are Striking
Now of course there are some differences between today and then. Today, faithful Protestants are standing with the Church against the government, recognizing the government and not the Church is the threat. The state has not (yet?) attempted to control who can become a priest or bishop or jailed clergy for opposing them. The state is not motivated by nationalism, but by a belief that Christian morality is a restriction of "rights."
But for the most part, the similarities between 19th century Germany and 21st century America are undeniable. Political factions, nominal Catholics and Protestants, and the state itself is attempting to dictate to the Church whether her institutions can follow Church teaching in the realm of sexual morality. The Church is deemed backwards and contrary to American values of freedom by refusing to compromise on issues like the HHS mandate, abortion and "gay marriage."
It is claimed that the Catholic hospitals and universities are not protected by the freedom of religion because they serve more than Catholics.
Scandals are portrayed as being universal within the Church, when they are not.
Ultimately, the portrayal is that Catholics who are faithful to the Church are dangerous right wingers who need to be isolated.
What Are We to Do?
Catholics today do need to be aware of the fact that groups hostile to us are trying to use the law to infringe on our religious freedoms. What we will need to do is to explain and defend the faith and demonstrate to people of good will that this is not merely a "Catholic Issue." It is an issue of freedom which harms everyone if the government is not opposed.
We will have to show both the issue of religious freedom and demonstrate why the Catholic moral teachings are right. The former is necessary to alert people to the dangers of a government violating the Constitution unchallenged. The latter is necessary to explain to people why contraception and abortion are not issues of "rights" but of reducing people to things.
We also need to be responsible voters. Ultimately the supporters of the German Kulturkampf suffered reverses in elections and some of the most hostile to the Church were voted out. We can't say, "Well this politician is bad on religious freedom, but I like his stand on taxes, so I'll vote for him anyway." We have to realize that the greatest threats must be dealt with first.
As the US Bishops said in 1998:
Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation.
(Living the Gospel of Life #23. Italics original. Underline added for emphasis)
Yes, there are many issues the Church teaches about. However, as the Bishops wisely pointed out. when the fundamental values are attacked, those attackers who support the secondary values are suspect.
Catholics and Non-Catholics of good faith need to recognize that we cannot be complacent. When faced with a government overtly hostile to our moral teachings and seeking to demand of us that we disobey our Church, we must oppose that government as part of our correcting the person in error.
American Kulturkampf
The 19th century Kulturkampf (literally Culture War or Culture Struggle) of Germany is an important event to consider for 21st century America because of what it was – the transformation of hostility towards Catholicism into an attempt by the government to control and limit the Church. I believe it is important to be aware of what happened then because, unlike other historical events, this one can be duplicated.
Preliminary Note
This is not an "Obama = Hitler" article. I don't approve of that meme. Obama is Obama. Hitler is Hitler. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent actions depended on attitudes and political conditions not found in America. Hitler was an extreme German nationalist who believed in a strong Germanic volk at the expense of other peoples and nations. Obama appears to believe that his policies will benefit all people, but "right wingers" are trying to block his policies.
In contrast, the current Kulturkampf is an event which began before Obama, and may continue after he has left office. Obama is certainly taking part in the Kulturkampf, but it does not depend on him.
What Was the Kulturkampf?
The Kulturkampf arose in 19th century Germany from an attitude from different factions of society which believed Catholicism was harmful to a strong Germany. Specifically it was a combination of the nationalist state, nominal Catholics and certain hostile Protestants. This hostility began at a time when the Catholic Church in Germany was awakening the morals of German Catholics. The factions in question made accusations of the Church interfering in politics and of intolerance – of trying to impose their values on others. They were accused of being enemies of progress.
Basically, it was assumed that Catholicism was in opposition to what was "right." Therefore, for the good of the people, Catholicism had to be opposed.
The attacks began with trying to change public opinion to assume that the Catholic teachings were unnatural. Isolated scandals were portrayed as the norm for the Church. The clergy was treated as predatory, controlling and heartless to the concerns of the people. It was argued that the Church had no right to teach as she did and needed to change.
Once the state became involved we began to see attempts through law to target the Church. It was argued certain Catholic institutions were not protected under the concept of the freedom of religion. Gradually, attempts were made to remove Church control from their properties, instituting fines against Catholics that did not comply with demands of the State and fines against churches which spoke out against the wrongdoing of the state from the pulpit.
Eventually it got to the point where the state demanded the right to choose who would fill Church positions, often preventing these positions from being filled. Bishops and priests were jailed for refusing to comply.
Essentially, the Kulturkampf was an attempt to silence the Church and limit her when her activities did not serve the state.
Similarities to Today are Striking
Now of course there are some differences between today and then. Today, faithful Protestants are standing with the Church against the government, recognizing the government and not the Church is the threat. The state has not (yet?) attempted to control who can become a priest or bishop or jailed clergy for opposing them. The state is not motivated by nationalism, but by a belief that Christian morality is a restriction of "rights."
But for the most part, the similarities between 19th century Germany and 21st century America are undeniable. Political factions, nominal Catholics and Protestants, and the state itself is attempting to dictate to the Church whether her institutions can follow Church teaching in the realm of sexual morality. The Church is deemed backwards and contrary to American values of freedom by refusing to compromise on issues like the HHS mandate, abortion and "gay marriage."
It is claimed that the Catholic hospitals and universities are not protected by the freedom of religion because they serve more than Catholics.
Scandals are portrayed as being universal within the Church, when they are not.
Ultimately, the portrayal is that Catholics who are faithful to the Church are dangerous right wingers who need to be isolated.
What Are We to Do?
Catholics today do need to be aware of the fact that groups hostile to us are trying to use the law to infringe on our religious freedoms. What we will need to do is to explain and defend the faith and demonstrate to people of good will that this is not merely a "Catholic Issue." It is an issue of freedom which harms everyone if the government is not opposed.
We will have to show both the issue of religious freedom and demonstrate why the Catholic moral teachings are right. The former is necessary to alert people to the dangers of a government violating the Constitution unchallenged. The latter is necessary to explain to people why contraception and abortion are not issues of "rights" but of reducing people to things.
We also need to be responsible voters. Ultimately the supporters of the German Kulturkampf suffered reverses in elections and some of the most hostile to the Church were voted out. We can't say, "Well this politician is bad on religious freedom, but I like his stand on taxes, so I'll vote for him anyway." We have to realize that the greatest threats must be dealt with first.
As the US Bishops said in 1998:
Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation.
(Living the Gospel of Life #23. Italics original. Underline added for emphasis)
Yes, there are many issues the Church teaches about. However, as the Bishops wisely pointed out. when the fundamental values are attacked, those attackers who support the secondary values are suspect.
Catholics and Non-Catholics of good faith need to recognize that we cannot be complacent. When faced with a government overtly hostile to our moral teachings and seeking to demand of us that we disobey our Church, we must oppose that government as part of our correcting the person in error.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Propaganda and Lies: Accusation that the Catholic Church wants to force its teachings on all women
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
—Adolph Hitler
The propaganda used by the Obama regime and their supporters since the beginning is the accusation that nobody is trying to impose their views on the Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church is trying to force their views on women.
As HL Mencken put it, "Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel." Mencken is right in this context if we let [A] be the government, [B] the Catholics and [X] being "Reproductive Freedom." It is false if one argues [A] is the Catholic Bishops, [B] is women and [X] is religious freedom.
That the Catholic Church is NOT injuring the freedom of non-Catholics
This can be simply demonstrated. If the Obama regime withdrew its HHS mandate tomorrow, and things went back to the status quo of January 19th, women would have nothing different than they have today. Catholics, however, would be much better off when it comes to their schools and hospitals; when it comes to the individual Catholic business person.
In other words, the Catholic is constrained by this new mandate, and this imposition is justified by claimed benefits to others. Women would not be constrained if the mandate was repealed.
It is thus demonstrated that the accusation that the Catholic teaching is trying to impose their views on women is false.
That the Obama regime IS injuring the religious freedom of Catholics
On the other side, it can be definitely shown that the HHS mandate is an imposition on Catholics who believe contraception is a moral evil. The mandate declares that any institution or business which is not explicitly religious in nature (hiring and serving Catholics exclusively) cannot be considered protected when it comes to the free practice of religion.
Such a decision is certainly an imposition on Catholics telling them that, if they hire or serve non-Catholics, their business cannot be considered to be protected under the First Amendment. The problem with such a claim is that Catholic individuals have rights to establish businesses which they run in conformity with their Catholic faith. The Catholic Church certainly has the right to run hospitals and schools – hiring those best suited for the job and serving all without concern of their beliefs – which they run according to what they believe to be in keeping with their service to God (see Matt 25:31-46).
A person who chooses to work at a Catholic university or hospital is not forced to do so. We don't have a draft which compels people to work for us. If a person freely chooses to work for a Catholic employer, it stands to reason that the institution or place of business will be run by Catholic beliefs and that the person hired should be willing to tolerate those beliefs if they want to work at this institution or place of business. The person who chooses to work at a Catholic institution or place of business, but demands that the Catholics set their beliefs aside for him or her, is in fact the one who is guilty of trying to impose their beliefs on others.
That the government sides with those individuals who try to impose their views on Catholic businesses and institutions in the name of a "greater good" shows that the government is injuring our Constitutional right to practicing religious freedom in public and private.
The Question of Whether Americans should follow the Catholic Teaching is a separate issue
Now Catholics do believe that contraception is intrinsically (in all times, places and circumstances) wrong and that all people should recognize this. However the Church also recognizes that a majority of Americans – including many American denominations – do not accept what we teach. Under such circumstances, the most the Church can do is to insist that those who call themselves Catholic live in accord with what they claim to be, while trying to teach others why the Catholic view is true and not merely a preference. Perhaps, eventually if enough Americans accept the truth about the nature of human sexuality, laws could be passed recognizing the truth. However, the bishops are not trying to secretly implement a "Sharia" type law on all Americans.
The fight that the Catholic bishops have to fight is over the government telling Catholics that they must pay for services they find morally unacceptable (the insurers naturally passing on the costs of contraceptives to the rates the Catholic employers must pay). Accusations that the Catholics are imposing their views on women is in fact a Big Lie, repeated to the point that people accept it to be true without question.
Propaganda and Lies: Accusation that the Catholic Church wants to force its teachings on all women
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
—Adolph Hitler
The propaganda used by the Obama regime and their supporters since the beginning is the accusation that nobody is trying to impose their views on the Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church is trying to force their views on women.
As HL Mencken put it, "Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel." Mencken is right in this context if we let [A] be the government, [B] the Catholics and [X] being "Reproductive Freedom." It is false if one argues [A] is the Catholic Bishops, [B] is women and [X] is religious freedom.
That the Catholic Church is NOT injuring the freedom of non-Catholics
This can be simply demonstrated. If the Obama regime withdrew its HHS mandate tomorrow, and things went back to the status quo of January 19th, women would have nothing different than they have today. Catholics, however, would be much better off when it comes to their schools and hospitals; when it comes to the individual Catholic business person.
In other words, the Catholic is constrained by this new mandate, and this imposition is justified by claimed benefits to others. Women would not be constrained if the mandate was repealed.
It is thus demonstrated that the accusation that the Catholic teaching is trying to impose their views on women is false.
That the Obama regime IS injuring the religious freedom of Catholics
On the other side, it can be definitely shown that the HHS mandate is an imposition on Catholics who believe contraception is a moral evil. The mandate declares that any institution or business which is not explicitly religious in nature (hiring and serving Catholics exclusively) cannot be considered protected when it comes to the free practice of religion.
Such a decision is certainly an imposition on Catholics telling them that, if they hire or serve non-Catholics, their business cannot be considered to be protected under the First Amendment. The problem with such a claim is that Catholic individuals have rights to establish businesses which they run in conformity with their Catholic faith. The Catholic Church certainly has the right to run hospitals and schools – hiring those best suited for the job and serving all without concern of their beliefs – which they run according to what they believe to be in keeping with their service to God (see Matt 25:31-46).
A person who chooses to work at a Catholic university or hospital is not forced to do so. We don't have a draft which compels people to work for us. If a person freely chooses to work for a Catholic employer, it stands to reason that the institution or place of business will be run by Catholic beliefs and that the person hired should be willing to tolerate those beliefs if they want to work at this institution or place of business. The person who chooses to work at a Catholic institution or place of business, but demands that the Catholics set their beliefs aside for him or her, is in fact the one who is guilty of trying to impose their beliefs on others.
That the government sides with those individuals who try to impose their views on Catholic businesses and institutions in the name of a "greater good" shows that the government is injuring our Constitutional right to practicing religious freedom in public and private.
The Question of Whether Americans should follow the Catholic Teaching is a separate issue
Now Catholics do believe that contraception is intrinsically (in all times, places and circumstances) wrong and that all people should recognize this. However the Church also recognizes that a majority of Americans – including many American denominations – do not accept what we teach. Under such circumstances, the most the Church can do is to insist that those who call themselves Catholic live in accord with what they claim to be, while trying to teach others why the Catholic view is true and not merely a preference. Perhaps, eventually if enough Americans accept the truth about the nature of human sexuality, laws could be passed recognizing the truth. However, the bishops are not trying to secretly implement a "Sharia" type law on all Americans.
The fight that the Catholic bishops have to fight is over the government telling Catholics that they must pay for services they find morally unacceptable (the insurers naturally passing on the costs of contraceptives to the rates the Catholic employers must pay). Accusations that the Catholics are imposing their views on women is in fact a Big Lie, repeated to the point that people accept it to be true without question.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Reflections on Truth and the Current American Crisis
To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.
—Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b 25
One of the sad problems of America today is our tendency to reject that which is old on the grounds that it is old. We are automatically interested in what is new. Have a two week old computer? Junk! Have a 2012 car? Trade it in! Talk about Greeks living close to 2500 years ago – are you crazy? The problem is, just because mechanical items become quickly replaceable and new science replaces older views of science as our abilities to observe become more precise, does not mean that what is true becomes obsolete.
Truth
In fact, if something is true, it is always true even if at some time it was not known by a culture. Slavery, for example, was not "right" in the times of the Greeks and Romans and wrong after 1865. It was always wrong even if some cultures did not recognize this. It will be wrong in the future, even if a future civilization decides that all people with an IQ of less than 125 can be treated as an object.
Likewise, the Earth did not begin revolving around the Sun beginning with the Copernican system, but prior to that was stationary with the Sun revolving around it. The Earth always revolved around the Sun, whether people were aware of it or not.
The point of stating the obvious is, despite what a person may say, it is either true or false depending on whether it accurately speaks of what is.
Truth and American Discourse
I think this is important when it comes to considering the political discourse in America, both public and private. When a person says a thing is, he or she speaks truly if that is correct, but speaks falsely if it is not correct.
In terms of the current crisis, we have people who are saying that access to contraceptives and abortion in Health Care is a Choice, Choice is a right, and therefore everyone must pay for these services, even if they believe contraception and abortion are morally wrong.
The problem is, "Freedom of Choice" is a meaningless phrase if it is not defined. So is the term "Rights." During the Civil War (and even with some people I have met in real life) declared that the issue of the war was the issue of State's Rights and to say the war was about slavery was to oversimplify. The question though is, The Right to do what? Um, well… the right of the State to determine whether or not slavery should be permitted. The problem however was that if Slavery was objectively wrong, no state had the right to permit it to begin with.
The Choice to Do What?
Likewise today, people like Pelosi champion the freedom of "Choice." The problem is, we can ask the same question, The Choice to do what? Whether or not we have that freedom, depends on what is.
In terms of abortion, the action being defended is the right of a woman to destroy the fetus in her body. Whether or not one is free to do this depends on whether the fetus is a person or not. We already recognize that one person may not have arbitrary control over another person's life. If the state must end a person's life, it may only be because the crime is heinous and this is the only possible way to protect innocents from harm. I don't have the right to shoot a neighbor because he plays the stereo too damn loud late at night.
So, if a woman has the freedom of "choice" regarding abortion, it assumes as proven that the fetus is not a person. The fetus either is or is not a person. If the fetus is a person, then whoever says the fetus is not a person does not speak truth.
History Shows the Horrors of Treating Persons as Non-Persons
This is not some academic philosophical issue. The 20th century's worst regime declared that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies were not persons, and went out of their way to enslave and eventually destroy them. We recognize that the Nazis did not speak the truth in declaring that the Jews were not persons and thus to treat the Jews as non humans was horrendously wrong.
I don't bring this up to say America is on the fast track to becoming the next Nazi Germany. Instead I say this to bring home an important point – The government does NOT have the authority to determine who is and who is not a person. Personhood is independent of what the government decrees. If the government declares that a person is a non-person, then that government does horrific evil.
Partisanship Replaces Truth Today… But Catholic Moral Teaching Predates the Ideologies We are Accused of Embracing
The problem is, in popular thought, nobody even thinks of truth any more. Nowadays, it is all partisanship… the ideology one likes is right and those who challenge that ideology are maliciously wrong, seeking to impose their views out of a lust for power and a hatred to whatever the ideologue invokes.
As a result, we see that the Catholic teachings of morality, which has existed far longer than the existence of the United States of America, is labeled as "Right Wing, Republican Propaganda." The belief that the fetus is a person and the belief that sexual relations are only permissible between husband and wife were taught in the first century AD.
Our beliefs were taught long before there was a Republican Party in existence or a Right Wing vs. Left Wing conflict or even a United States. We do not teach them because of a lust for power (we taught them when Christianity was hated by the Roman Empire) or a hatred of women (the Pagan Romans derided Christianity as a "religion for women"). We teach them because we believe this is how the God of All intended it to be when he created humanity – and that which goes against what God intended is harmful to persons whether they recognize the teaching of God or not.
Regardless of whether or not people today accept the Catholic moral teaching as true or not, this is what Catholics do believe. Because all of us are called to follow what is true, and Catholics do believe their moral teaching is true, Catholics must do what they believe is true, regardless of whether the state agrees or not.
An Unjust Law is No Law at All
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, some 500 years before the United States came into being:
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (91, 2, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.
But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that "one should do harm to no man": while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.
—Summa Theologica (I-II. Q.95. A.2)
Because we believe that the current HHS mandate violates the law of nature, we believe the mandate is a perversion of law. People may argue that what was written by a medieval theologian can be ignored, but that goes back to the original problem Americans have of rejecting something which is true because it is old.
Because we recognize the principle, "one should do harm to no man," and we recognize that the current law does harm to man, Catholics are not unreasonable in opposing this law, because it is no law at all and has no force outside of the state using coercion to force compliance. Since the First Amendment forbids the government from laws concerning the establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion, we can say that even under the Constitution we are governed by, this mandate is no law at all, but an act of coercion and tyranny.
Thus, even if one disagrees with what the Catholic Church teaches, one must reasonably oppose this mandate as being nothing more than tyranny imposed.
Conclusion: Truth and Law
These considerations are important and not merely theoretical. If the government is to create a good law, a just law, then it must be a law grounded in what is true. The government cannot make truth however. The government can only follow truth. If a government follows truth and grounds the law in truth, it is a good government.
Some may argue that the Catholic position is not true and not grounded in truth. So you disagree with me. But disagreement with me is not proving your position to be true. The Catholic Church certainly has written vast amounts on why she holds what she believes. Those who disagree with her in this current crisis don't even bother to prove what they believe. "Choice" is repeated as a mantra, and people are not allowed to choose as to whether America should embrace "Choice."
Ultimately, many believers are being forced to accept something they believe is a bad and unjust law, not grounded in truth, but in the embrace of vice. Such a mandate is no just law and those who recognize this as wrong are not bound to obey it. The government may coerce and exact penalties, but this is nothing more than the use of force to make people comply.
We used to recognize that was tyranny. Now, nobody seems to recognize what we have lost because we have forgotten long held truths.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—From the Declaration of Independence