Can Catholics vote for a pro-Choice candidate?

Can a Catholic vote for a pro-Choice candidate?

The short answer, from Henry Karlson, can be found here.

The USCCB in Faithful Citizenship answers thus:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, 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... There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may 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...In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching...As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

However, Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, put it a little more forcefully. He writes:

So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

RepubliCatholics across the blogosphere have interpreted Chaput's answer to be a virtual NO.

I'd like to ask two questions:
1. Is Chaput's characterization of the issue accurate and fair?
2. In a hypothetical (or real world) situation what "proportionate" reason might fulfill Chaput's criterion?

I will post my thoughts shortly. What are yours?

“Christ, Our Hope: Part II - God of Peace in the Old Testament

A commenter on my first post of the series asked the following question: "How do Christians like yourself conciliate your pacifist view of Jesus with an often war-friendly God of the Old Testament?" In order to properly and fully answer the above question, I would need to write a book. Being that a book ain't happening, hopefully the following will suffice. Now first we must have a general understanding of a Catholic approach to Sacred Scripture. Painting in broad strokes we can say that Scripture is inspired by God and written by men. It is not dictated, but inspired. Scripture is free from error.

all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the HS, we must acknowledge that the books of scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God , for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided in the Sacred Scriptures (Dei Verbum 11)

However, when speaking of inerrancy we must also keep in mind the intent of the Biblical authors, both human and divine. Generally speaking, Scripture is not a history or science text book. It is not intended to speak to that sort of truth. Rather, it reveals God to us, and reveals how we are to respond to His gratuitous gifts in order to accept (and receive) salvation. All of the above affects how we interpret the Bible. The Catechism lays out several guidelines. 1. We must pay attention to the intention of both the human and Divine authors. 2. We must keep in mind the content and unity of the Bible. Everything is to be read in context and in light of the whole, and the Old Testament (OT) is always to be read in the light of Christ. It is preparation for him and points toward him; therefore Christ, in Himself, unveils the deeper, hidden truths of the OT. 3. Augustine adds that when we come across something in the Bible which appears to be self-contradictory we are either dealing with a translation error or some error on our part in interpreting the texts.

Now we can actually consider the Old Testament of an apparently "war-friendly God" in light of Christ. At the onset we must acknowledge that the pages of the OT are dripping with blood. War abounds. Israel seems to commit genocide in some cases. Furthermore, it is not only that God is war-friendly, but He himself is even called a warrior. (Exod 15:3). Not only can this not be reconciled with the "pacifist" views held by some Christians, but it cannot be reconciled with a God who is just and merciful. I do not want to worship a God who condones genocide.

So, what is going on here? First, we must recognize that in the Bible we see the slow development of God's self- revelation. Just as we slowly reveal to children the truth about any number of things (i.e. sex, death, math, etc.), God slowly reveals himself to humanity after the fall, after they have forsaken him. He makes covenants, first with a couple, then a family, a tribe, a kingdom, and finally with all humanity. At first no other God is to be worshiped before him. Later, he is the only God. God, in revealing himself to us meets us, where we are and guides us into a fuller understanding of Truth. God meets the His people, the Israelites, as a nomadic group living in a pagan world and slowly purifies their conceptions of God (from polytheism, to monotheism, to Trinitarianism) and the world. Ultimately he is preparing humanity and the world to receive his full revelation of self in the incarnation, in Christ.

Second, we must remember that God is God -- and we, well, we're not. It is conceivable that the Author of Life could, in all justice and mercy, allow/command death, famine, war, as a punishment (which is still always also an act of love and mercy), whereas we, in our limited knowledge and typically selfish motivations, cannot rightly make such judgments. We have no right to claim authority over anyone else's life.

Third, we must not proof text or take passages out of context. The passages that appear to depict God approving of or commanding genocide or the like, when in context, do not reveal that at all. Before looking at cases of war, let's take a step back and briefly consider a few paradigm cases. Sodom and Gomorrah: We can find background info on this in Gen 13-19 and scattered throughout the NT. Glen Miller sums up the situation as follows:

It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).

We can find the same situation in the story of the Flood. Humanity has devolved into horrid sin and violence. Noah preached warning and repentance for 100 years. It was an issue of divine judgment and punishment. Yet, the innocent, again, were spared. Again in Nineveh we see a similar situation. A society wallowing in sin and defilement, which God gives an unconditional warning. John 3:4-10:

Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day's walk announcing, "Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed," when the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth.When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in the ashes.Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh, by decree of the king and his nobles: "Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water.Man and beast shall be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; every man shall turn from his evil way and from the VIOLENCE he has in hand. Who knows, God may relent and forgive, and withhold his blazing wrath, so that we shall not perish."

When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.

Notice that violence was part of the evil for which the Ninevites repented and that upon their repentance the Divine judgment is not carried out.

Now that we have background of the OT's depiction of God's judgment and punishment and mercy, we can consider the issue of war more directly. Due to the size of the OT let us choose one case example, which certainly will not prove to relieve all doubts, but I have no intention of writing a book. Let us consider the annihilation of the Canaanites (aka Amorites). 1. Was this a divine judgment? Gen 15:16 - "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." Seems like it was, 2. What their sin really that bad? Was this warranted? Lev 18:2-5 - The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD'." The passage continues listing all sorts of sinful practices apparently common among the Canaanites. Referencing the same group, the Bible also states, "You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." (Deut 12.31) In short, on top of their violent warlike tendencies, Canaanite religious practices were...

1. Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
2. Incest
3. Bestiality
4. Homosexual practices
5. Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

Through Abraham, Melchizedek, Joseph, etc., repentance and Truth were preached for 400+ years. Throughout the years several different types of threats were issued:

1. "wipe them out" (e.g. Ex 23.23)
2. "throw them into confusion" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
3. "make them turn their backs and run" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
4. "drive them out of your way" (e.g. Ex 23.28)
5. "struck down" (e.g. Ps 135.10)
6. "dispossessed" (e.g. Num 21.32)
7. "drive out" (e.g. Num 33.52)
8. "thrust out" (e.g. Deut 6.19)
9. "destroy them" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
10. "subdue them before you" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
11. "annihilate" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
12. "delivered them over to you" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
13. "defeated them" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
14. "perish" (e.g. Deut 7.20)
15. "give kings into your hands" (e.g. Deut 7.24)
16. "wipe out their names from under heaven" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

We should be aware of the vast difference between words like "annihilate" and "drive out." About 10 of the phrases, about 2/3, could be said to be of the "driving out" variety, rather than "annihilation." If we consider the above passages in context it grows increasingly clear that God is planning on "moving" a nation, instead of "destroying a people"... interesting. Even after all the evil they've committed? But, how are we to reconcile the driving out with the annihilating? It seems, upon reading in the context, that the people were driven out and the nation/culture annihilated. The Canaanites who refused to leave were killed by the Israelites, enforcing the punishment of God. Again, the Canaanites had waged periodic and often unheraled wars with Israel for generations. They practiced all kinds of abominable acts and were a threat not only the physical survival of the people, but also to the purity of Judaism. Nevertheless, the Biblical data seems to agree with the historical and archaeological data -- there was no genocide. Further, God used the same criteria, warnings, and punishment with Israel. After generations of disobeying God and falling into the same sinful practices (child sacrifice - Is 57:5; temple prostitution - Jer 13:27, & I Kgs 15.12; 22; etc.), after generations of prophets preaching repentance, God issued his judgment:

Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)

"This is what the LORD says: `Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague, but whoever goes over to the Babylonians will live. He will escape with his life; he will live.' 3 And this is what the LORD says: `This city will certainly be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon, who will capture it.'" (Jer 38.2)

"Furthermore, tell the people, `This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death. 9 Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague. But whoever goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; he will escape with his life. 10 I have determined to do this city harm and not good, declares the LORD. It will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he will destroy it with fire.' (Jer 21.8)

Thus God uses war, both for and against Israel, to enact his mercy, justice and punishment. God, as the omniscient Author of Life has that Authority. We do not.

Furthermore, we cannot consider the OT passages which depict war without considering the, in some ways, central concept of shalom in the OT. A few examples will be helpful. Shortly after leading several peoples into a victory in war, Abram runs into a man named Melchizedek whom we don't hear from again until the letter to the Hebrews, which refers to Jesus as "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Christianity has picked up this enigmatic figure as a type of Christ.) The verse in Genesis in which he appears reads as follows, "Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything." (Gen 14:18-20) We can glean a few interesting bits from this. Melchizedek, whose very name means "priest-king" and is called righteous, is king of Salem or shalom. Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ, is the king of a mountain called Peace. Immediately after a war, Abram meets with the King of Peace and offers a sacrifice. The mount on which Abram met Melchizedek is the same mount on which the sacrifice of Isaac took place. After the event (which is whole other series of posts) Abram names the mount "the place where God will provide" or Yahweh-yireh, which eventually comes to be known as Yireh-Salem or the Mount where God will provide Peace. God is the God of Peace. As the whole OT points forward to Christ, it also points forward to a time of peace. The book of Isaiah contains one of the many prophecies that speak of an eschatological future without war. Isaiah 3:2-4 says:

In days to come, The mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it; many peoples shall come and say: "Come, let us climb the LORD'S mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths." For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.

War brings death. Death is a result of sin. No one wants war. It always represents a failure of some kind. The OT presents a God who wants to bring peace (lasting universal peace) to the world. The OT as a whole represents a slow move away from the prevalent culture of war to Christ. This makes sense in light of Christ, who as the revelation of God himself, reveals himself as a non-violent, but powerful and eminently loving yet just God of peace. We shall consider the words and witness of Christ in the what is to come.

Sources: Walter Wink, John Dear, Catholic Peace Fellowship, Pax Christi , Adrian Helleman, Albert Winn , Glen Miller

Part 3 can be found here.

Edited for grammar and readability

“Christ, Our Hope in the Face of Violence and Our Witness to Nonviolent Love”

I recently posted on the just war theory. While what I wrote in that post is true and accurate, it is not the whole story. As shall become clear in the coming posts, I believe the Church is moving away from a model of justified war and closer to its original position of non-violent loving resistance. What follows is a series of brief historical sketches on how the Church has viewed war. Much of this will be excerpts from a paper I wrote. Let me know your thoughts.

PART I: INTRO

“In the preparation of the Catechism there were two problems: the death penalty and the just war theory were the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the Americans,” said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, in an interview with Vatican Radio in 2001. Later, in 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger questioned whether, in this day and age, “it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’”¹

In light of Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments we would like to consider the validity of the just war theory, as a response to a call placed by the Church: “The Magisterium condemns “the savagery of war” and asks that war be considered in a new way. In fact, “it is hardly possible to imagine that in an atomic era, war could be used as an instrument of justice.”²

Our quest requires some valid solution to an apparent paradox and contradiction: The Catechism of the Catholic Church praises those who “bear witness to evangelical charity”⁵ while renouncing violence in defense of self and others, but it also describes the duty to defend others as grave and legitimate⁶ and lays out the requirements for a just war.⁷ Are these actually contradictory? While affirming the duty to defense and the possibility of a just war, the Church has been consistently critical of wars waged in the last twenty years such that some have described Pope John Paul II’s perspective on war to have been that of a practical pacifism. How are we to synthesize the duty to defend others, the teachings on just war, and the evangelical witness of Christian non-violence?⁸

In order to do this, we shall first return to Christ to consider warfare in light of his words, in light of his suffering, death, and resurrection, and in light of revelation of the kenotic love of the Father. We shall consider the witness of the earliest Christians, the thought of St. Augustine and the Just-war theory, while reflecting briefly upon the relationship between the Church and the state. We shall conclude our historical overview by listening attentively to the teachings of the popes of the 20^th and 21^st Centuries whose thoughts represent a development in the Just-War theory.⁹ Finally, we shall attempt to offer a preliminary conclusion to what this new way of war might look like and what demands it makes of the Christian living in the modern world, a world who hopes not in Christ, but in power.

Part 2 can be found here.

1 Antonella Palermo, “Cardinal Ratzinger, After the 9/11 Attacks: Interview with Vatican Radio from 2001,” Zenit, April 27, 2005.

2 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, (Rome: the Holy See, 2005), 497.

3 Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, (Rome:the Holy See, 1965), 78.

4 In truth, this is not a new attitude at all, but a return to the attitude of Christ and the early Christians towards war. We may be able to see a development from then to now, but the basic attitude remains that of Christ.

5 Catechism of the Catholic Church, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2306.

6 Ibid., 2264.

7 Ibid., 2309.

8 For our purposes violence refers to that use of force which is inconsistent with the dignity of the human person. War, as considered in the modern sense, is dependent upon violence. Subsequently we shall concern ourselves with the question of whether violence is a necessary and integral part of warfare.

9 Throughout, we are assuming a general familiarity with and tacit approval of just war theory. Therefore, our discussion will focus on Christian non-violence, referencing Church perspectives on just war when appropriate.

Being Catholic in America part VIII - Just War

"War is always a defeat for humanity" and is contrary to Jesus' call to be peacemakers. The Christian always mourns the destruction and death which accompanies war, but the Church has recognized that in some cases the secular world must resort to war. In order to evaluate the involvement of Christians in these regrettable situations to help guide her children, the Church teaches a Just-War Doctrine, which the delineates the preconditions necessary for a war to have a just cause and for the actually fighting to be waged in a just manner.

The Catechism describes the Just- War Doctrine here, see specifically, articles 2307- 2317.

A country can only be said to have a just cause for going to war if all of the following conditions are met:

1 - The war must be a war of defense and the response must be proportionate to the initial attack to which one is responding.

2 - War must ALWAYS be the last resort. ALL other "diplomatic" options must be exhausted.(when has this ever been the case?)

3 - The country must have high likelihood of success in war.

4 - The use of weapons must not cause more suffering/evil than refraining from war would have caused.

Furthermore a legitimate authority must make the decision to go to war and civilians and non combatants must not be harmed. By "legitimate authority" the Church does mean the head of a country or nation-state, but an international authority. In other words, President Bush is not the legitimate authority here, the UN is the legitimate authority.

With this information in mind we can evaluate the recent war policies of our country. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II have both condemned the Iraq war as being unjust. Why might that be?

Contrary to the misinformed opinion of some of people, Iraq had no role in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, for all his flaws, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda, which had no presence in Iraq before the war. Therefore, our invasion was not a defensive response. We initiated the violence. Some will counter that the war is justified as pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat. However, Joseph Ratzinger has explained that the just war doctrine does NOT allow for a pre-emptive war. The Catechism does not allow for such a justification.

Furthermore, in attacking Iraq, President Bush ignored the recommendation of the legitimate authority, the UN, and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been injured in the war. The Archbishop of Baghdad has noted that daily life for the average Iraqi, specifically Iraqi Christians was safer, less chaotic, and more "normal" during the reign of Saddam Hussein than it is now. Despite the horrors and evils of the Hussein Regime, the argument could be made that the war and overthrowing the regime has produced more evils than leaving the regime in place.

Simply put, the Iraq war cannot be justified based on Catholic principles of peace and justice.

America's current policy of war does not support a consistent ethic of life which demands that we hold all life as sacred and priceless. Iraqi lives are just as important and sacred as American lives. We must remember that we are one Body in Christ, we are the Catholic (Universal) Church, not the American church.

IF we want to live out our universal call to holiness, if we want to be faithful Catholics in America we must not buy into this us (good guys) vs. them (bad guys) rhetoric. War is not the answer and is always a defeat for humanity. JP II taught "there can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness." War does not bring this. It only brings pain, death, suffering, hated, and a false,forced sense of closure. This is why the wars in the middle east, specifically between the Jews and Palestinians have continued and will continue. There can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness. We must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, not bomb them to smithereens.

May God grant us the grace to be witnesses to faith, hope, and love, witnesses to the peace which only Christ can offer, in a society that puts its open in armed weaponry and the strength of men.

A Thomistic understanding of Law and its Implications for gay marriage

Morning's Minion over at Vox-Nova recently wrote critiquing the Supreme Court's decision on D.C.'s handgun ban. I believe some of his reflections on the nature of Law and a Catholic understanding thereof can shed some light on the role of the government in legislating marriage, specifically gay marriage. [Note: In this post my intention not so much to develop a natural law argument for traditional marriage, but to show that the arguments for gay marriage are intrinsically flawed]

MM writes the following:

The US Supreme Court has declared the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns to be unconstitutional as it violates the so called individual “right to bear arms”. We need to unpack this. The Catholic perspective is to start with Aquinas, who viewed law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community”. The Enlightenment era gave us another view of the law, predicated on the notion of individual liberty as the foundation of society. In other words, the person has the right to do as they wish in search of personal fulfillment, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of another. Law is then all about the enforcement of social contracts.

It would be erroneous not to credit the Enlightenment with its achievements. Too often, rulers abused the notion of “common good” (if they even bothered to seek a rationale) to trample upon human rights and human dignity. In re-discovering and liberating this essential Catholic teaching, we must be grateful to “Enlightenment values”. But we cannot go too far, for the underlying anthropology is false. It is used to support laissez-faire liberalism, based on the notion that market exchange is a “free” exchange that reflects natural differences in the various actors. This approach as been condemned vociferously by the Church from Pope Leo XIII onwards, for the Church looks at these issues through the lens of the common good, the way Aquinas viewed the law. The ethic of private liberty has led directly to gay marriage, where the goal is simply the satisfaction of personal desires as opposed to the common good which would emphasize the bearing and rearing of children. And of course abortion is justified in this manner: the “right to privacy” is paramount, and the unborn simply cannot be active participants in a social contract.

This is a rather lengthy introduction, but, I believe, an essential one. For the right to bear arms that the Supreme Court upheld today comes directly from this notion of personal liberty trumping the common good. For the authorities charged with the common good in DC, an area suffering from extremely high gun-related violence, felt that a ban on handguns was appropriate. Of course, this ban can have limited effect absent border controls at the Potomac river. But is this a valid argument for inaction? To use that logic, the ability to travel means that no laws restricting abortion should be enacted either.

I wish specifically to focus on his treatment of Law. According to Aquinas, the Law is always meant to serve the common good. Furthermore, human laws can only truly be considered laws if they do not contradict the higher orders of law (natural law, divine law, and eternal law, which it is not my purpose to delve into here). While not necessarily applicable to gun laws, it is certainly pertinent to marriage laws, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

MM also adds a critique of our current Enlightenment-influenced understanding of law which has led to all the rights-based talk we see today. A right to privacy, a right to choose, a right to abortion, a right to guns, a right to do what I want when I want as long as I don't harm others, as long as I don't break the social contract. This very concept is illogical, contrary to the common good. For example, there is no way of knowing what hurts others, (private actions do have real effects) . Furthermore the governing bodies become the arbiters of rights. Thus we end of with people deciding that this or that is a legitimate right even though it may be harmful to society and contrary to the common good. We must not continue to base our Law on this thinking, which is a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to the further destruction of the family and of society.

MM explains that this faulty understanding of law logically leads to a right to choose abortion and a right to gay marriage.

So what might a proper understanding of law have to say about gay marriage? In order to more fully understand the implications of this question, we must consider how natural marriage serves the common good. Marriage/ Family is the foundation of any stable society. It expresses an accurate anthropology of the complementarity of the sexes where man and woman can help each other persevere through life's troubles and share life's joys. It offers a stable environment for the conceiving and rearing of children, who have the right to a safe, stable home life, a right to be educated, and a right to be loved. Statistics show that children who are deprived of these basic rights are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, are more likely to suffer from depression, are more likely to engage in promiscuous activities, etc.

In other words, the positive advantages of marriage for a civil society are numerous and nearly incalculable. Traditionally, this is why governments have offered incentives (tax breaks, etc.) to encourage marriage and stable family life.

Gay marriage does not offer many of these advantages. Furthermore, it is contrary to the natural law. Without using the flawed slippery slope of rights-based Enlightenment influenced argumentation, on what basis can one argue for a law allowing Gay marriage?

Torture Revisited, USCCB on Torture

The USCCB has released a Catholic Study guide on Torture, a 40-page document consisting of four chapters.

Chapter 1 is devoted to Catholic thought on the dignity of every human person. For when Catholic leaders today turn attention to the use of torture in prisons of any kind anywhere in the world, they consistently view it as a violation of the human person’s God-given dignity.
Chapter 2 focuses on torture itself, and the reasons why it is a source of such concern for the Church at this point in the third millennium. What forms does torture take? What reasons are given for the torture or abusive treatment of prisoners today? What specific objections are lodged by Catholic leaders against torture?
Chapter 3 closely examines Jesus’ Gospel instruction to love our enemies. Is it actually possible to love enemies in these threatening times of terrorism? Is it possible to love an enemy who may harbor information we seek to defend ourselves? The teaching of the Gospel on love for our enemies is not easy to follow, but Catholic leaders tell in this chapter why they view it as a teaching of utmost seriousness.
Chapter 4 is designed to promote discussion of actions that individuals, families, small groups in parishes, schools and others might take to address the issue of torture, and to raise awareness of its importance as a moral matter.
Finally, in an appendix to this discussion guide, you’ll find the text of a letter written in late 2007 by Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, Chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to members of the Senate. This appendix serves as a valuable overview of the Church’s reasons for opposing torture.

This looks like an excellent resource and should be fruitful for two purposes: 1 - laying the smackdown to any Catholics still defending the Bush regime's use of torture, and 2 - guiding local parish groups in discussion and action and advocacy on the topic of torture.

Awesome!

Voting: Can a third party vote be justified?

To be completely honest, I am not at all excited about either of the candidates in the upcoming presidential election, and I am generally jaded by and disappointed in both the Republicans and the Democrats.

If I had to vote now I would probably vote for a third party candidate. When I mention this, most persons kind up turn of their nose and mention something about wasting the vote. My response varies from a shrug to something like the following...

In voting for a third party candidate I may be voting for someone who has no reasonable chance of winning. However, I am honestly placing my vote for the person whom I believe in. I feel like our 2-party system forces us into a false dichotomy. I don't feel like my interests are represented by either of the parties. Maybe, if enough of us express similar feelings on the current political climate, some change could take place. I'm not sure.

At least, that was by general thoughts, but now... I'm not so sure.

About a week ago I read a post on Vox-Nova by Henry Karlson entitled, In The Real World, We Can’t Get Away From Evil. He gave the example of Saints, like our own patron St. Thomas More, who cooperated with regimes committing evil deeds while refusing to directly participate in evil in the hopes of bringing about the greater long-term good.

I am attempting to discern the juxtaposition of voting for the person whom I believe is best vs. voting for someone who participate in evils but who may also bring about a better situation than the other primary candidate.

I encourage you to read the entire article. But even if you don't...what are you thoughts?

Sex and the City revisited

Recently I wrote on two different (Catholic) perspectives on Sex and the City discussed on Vox-Nova. Katerina believed that the show and movie were inconsistent with Catholic/ Christian life and damaging to culture by promoting and sensationalizing immoral actions and attitudes. Radical Catholic Mom, however, that the show was an exaggerated glimpse into the struggles we all have and was indicative of our need for more than selfish desires in order to find fulfillment. Over at Catholic Educator's Resource, Colleen Campbell argues that the show is problematic to say the least. She concludes:

For all their pretensions to envelope-pushing, the movie's producers apparently could not improve on the age-old answer to a woman's romantic yearnings: the very ideal of traditional marriage so often disparaged by the series. Even the promiscuous, materialistic fashion plates of Sex and the City ultimately succumb to the desire to direct their erotic energies into something more enduring than one-night stands and shopping sprees. They want, as most women do, the kind of lifelong love that can survive wrinkles and stretch marks and the dowdier duds of old age.

Of course, such happy endings may prove more elusive for viewers. Decades of bed-hopping and gold-digging look glamorous on television, but in real life, a woman who sleeps with scores of men is more likely to wind up with a sexually transmitted disease and an attachment disorder than a doting husband and storybook marriage. And in real life, a woman who postpones motherhood until well into her forties faces the very real chance that she never will conceive.

The popularity of Sex and the City suggests that many women accept the show's premise that a woman can spend decades treating people like things and things like people without compromising her future prospects for marriage and motherhood. That one TV show could sell that canard to so many women indicates that Sex and the City is more subversive than either its fans or its fiercest critics imagine.

My inclination is to side with Colleen and Katerina. Although I understand RCM's point, I think the majority of the people who watch the show/movie are not as savvy in reading and interpretating media as she is. I think most just see, they are doing it, so can I. Some of the statistics quoted by Colleen in her article bear this out.

Immigration Revisited

Previously, in my series on Being Catholic in America, we have discussed
Immigration issues in a general and cursory manner.

Recently, Zenit, a non-profit news agency which reports news from the Vatican and other Catholic sources, published an interview with Johnny Young the director of the U.S. Bishop's Conference on Migration and Refugee services.

Mr. Young has several important and timely points to make about immigration reform and the upcoming election. I shall quote a few, but I suggest you read the entire article linked above.

Young explains the myths and misconceptions about immigrants which result from fear and ignorance and are often passed off as reasons for limiting immigration reform or to simply "keep them out." Young says,

In terms of the undocumented, the problems are numerous. For example, there is the myth of the undocumented not paying taxes and draining the system of resources for social service benefits of one kind or another. The empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. They do pay taxes and are not an undue burden on social services.

In terms of taxes, they have paid billions into the Social Security system and will not collect a penny from it. They are in effect, helping to keep the Social Security system afloat. This, of course, is in addition to what the undocumented pay in income, real estate, sales and other federal and state taxes.

Then there is the forgotten fact that the undocumented are no different than any of us in wanting to do the best for their families.

Clearly, we must remember that these immigrant, documented or undocumented (NOT LEGAL OR ILLEGAL!!!) are human persons made in the image and likeness of God. Generally speaking they have the well- being of their families at heart, and they do a lot more than simply drain on our economy.

Most important of all is that the plight of the undocumented is part of a dilemma that has the American people in a conflicted situation of wanting it both ways, i.e. having the benefits of the labor and sweat of the undocumented, but without allowing them a pathway to citizenship for what they have contributed to our well-being and country.

This problem could, of course, be corrected through passage of a comprehensive immigration reform law.

Therefore, Young can add that,

From a Catholic perspective, once parishioners become better informed of Catholic social teaching, one would expect that they would become more welcoming of the stranger. After all, that is part of what their faith is all about. Unfortunately, not enough of our Catholic brethren are sufficiently grounded in these teachings, which are based on biblical principles and are all intended to open the heart to the wonders of God’s love.

Finally, paraphrasing some of what Pope Benedict XVI had to say in him visit the US, Young concludes,

[Pope Benedict] not only reminded us of those historical and biblical facts [which us to welcome the stranger and to care for the migrant], but reminded us of our duty to be kind to them, as the nation had been in the past. He was being the good shepherd in trying to steer his flock and the nation to which it belongs in the right direction.

If that simple reminder were being followed today, this country would not be experiencing the kind of turmoil it is presently undergoing in trying to come to grips with a totally broken immigration system.

We Americans derive many, many benefits from the sweat and hard work of immigrants and accept the benefits derived from their work as God given advantages and part of the blessings bestowed on this great country. At the same time, though, we don't want to give those who have "paid dues" through their labor and hardships a pathway to citizenship. This is simply not fair or just.

As Catholics we are called to follow the teachings of Christ and His Bride, Holy Mother Church, and our Holy Father Pope Benedict on this very important social issue. Let our opinions be led by the Spirit of Love and Hope and not by our political affiliations.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in us the courage and the hope to challenge our politicians and our government to work towards immigration reform that is just and charitable to all involved.

Sex and the City...a proper Catholic perspective...

As someone who has probably never seen a full episode of Sex and the City, and has no intention of watching the movie, I may not have much authority to be authoring a post about it. Nevertheless, over at Vox-Nova there is an interesting discussion, coming from two differing perspectives, on the value of the series. Katerina argues that the promiscuity and materialism exhibited by the characters are bad examples and role models for many people, especially the young, who glorify the characters and want to imitate them. She believes shows such as these have no real value in that they don't inspire us or encourage to become better Christians. Radical Catholic Mom claims that the series shows that the women do not find fulfillment in sex or materialism and over time they learn to love more and more selflessly. She sees a little bit of each of the characters in herself, and in all of us.

What do you think ?

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part VII - Torture

[This is part VII of a series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI.]

After a long hiatus, I have finally completed Part VII of our series examining the Catholic position on issues relevant to American citizens and the upcoming elections. Thus far we have spoken of the universal call to holiness, which forbids any sort of “cafeteria Catholicism,” and demands that we all play our faith in Christ and membership in the Church before and above and in the center of our citizenship in America and our allegiance to any particular political party. Keeping the universal call to holiness, to sainthood, in mind we have considered the consistent ethic of life, which states that because all human beings are sons of daughters of God, all human life must be respected from conception to natural death and everywhere in between. Thus we have considered the problems with inherently evil acts or attitudes such as racism, immigration discrimination, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. We have concluded on all of the above issues that the Church strictly forbids them. We are not, under any circumstances to support such practices or to support a political candidate because he/she proposes an approach to those issues which contradicts the consistent ethic of life and the dignity of the human person.

This part of our series will examine the Church teaching on torture. Torture has become a very hot issue of late, because Pres. Bush and the military have condoned torture and have used it to interrogate prisoners of war and terrorists. The argument for torture basically relies on fear. It claims that because this prisoner has information that could help us prevent future (terrorist) attacks, and thus save lives, we have an obligation to torture this prisoner until he/she gives us the information we need to save American lives. The president and those who support torture are clearly relying on an “ends justify the means” logic here. In other words, because the end result of torture is to save American lives, possibly even millions of lives, we are allowed to treat this prisoner in horrible, grotesque, and de-humanizing ways. This logic is clearly NOT Catholic.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity… It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”(CCC 2297-2298).

The US Bishops in their document Faithful Citizenship write, “direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.” (article 23). Our Bishops continue teaching, “The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism.” (article 88).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church adds on to this: “In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim.” (404)

We can clearly say that the Church teaches that torture is an inherently evil act. It is always wrong and is contrary to Jesus’ command to love our enemies. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI says that ““the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstance.”

We must not promote, condone, accept, or tolerate the torture of any human beings. As Catholic-Christians we are called to stand up for all who are mistreated, even our enemies. Our country has stepped onto slippery slope of war-time immorality by using torture. Let us conclude with a strong statement by our bishops on the issue:

“Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved-policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now-without exceptions.”

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part VI - Stem Cell Research

[This is part VI of a series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.]

JB has asked me to write a post on stem cell research in his series on being a faithful Catholic in America. This is an issue that must be considered when making your election decisions.

Research involving the use of stem cells is often in the news these days, but there are different types of stem cells and therefore differing levels of moral use of them involved. This is not something that is carefully explained in the media and so all kinds of stem cell research are usually just lumped together with promises of great cures attached to them. First of all, what are stem cells? Basically, stem cells are cells that have not been differentiated; they are “generic” cells that have the potential to become differentiated into, say, liver cells or skin cells or blood cells or cardiac (heart) cells, etc. Stem cells are flexible, and when given the right kinds of growth factors and nutrients, they can become any number of differentiated cells. This is why they are so promising to researchers; if they learn how to manipulate stem cells, they can produce any number of differentiated cells, which can be used to grow various kinds of tissues and organs, which can lead to cures. Such discoveries would prove to be quite valuable.

Next, we must make some distinctions. The most critical distinction that must be made is between the sources of stem cells. There are two types: embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos, of course. [A brief biology review: a fertilized egg is a single cell that divides repeatedly until it becomes a blastocyst, which is a hollow ball of cells. When the blastocyst implants into the side of the uterus and cell division continues, it is an embryo. It is medically called an “embryo” until it is about eight weeks old, when it becomes a “fetus” until it’s born.] To get stem cells from an embryo, these cells have to be extracted from the inner cell mass; this cannot be done without killing the embryo. Another source of “embryonic” stem cells is aborted fetuses; the stem cells are extracted immediately following an abortion. On the other hand, there are adult stem cells. These can be taken from umbilical cords, placentas, and amniotic fluid following the birth of a baby. They can also be taken from cadavers (up to twenty hours after death) and living adult tissues and organs, namely from bone marrow but also from fat extracted using liposuction and cells in the nasal cavity (nose).

Let us look at the moral issues involved with these two types of stem cells. As Catholics, we know abortion is wrong, as JB explained in his last post. Abortion includes actually going to an abortion clinic and having the fetus extracted, taking an oral “medicine” (poison) such as RU-486 or “Plan B” which causes a chemical abortion, using contraceptives that are known to cause abortions (including most versions of the Pill, IUDs, etc.), or destroying an embryo, a human life in its earliest stages, in a petri dish or any other location.

Some question whether destroying an embryo is actually wrong. Arguments on both sides say that the embryo is a “potential” human person. One side says it’s only potentially human, so it’s okay to kill it, while the other side insists that it is potentially a human person, so we must not kill it. This argument is flawed, because it is based on passive potentiality. In other words, the embryo is seen as just passive stuff, like clay in the hands of a potter waiting to be molded into something. This just isn’t true (as any good biologist can tell you). From the moment of conception, the new human life is active potential. There is a guiding purpose at work, even on the level of DNA, which guides the development and growth of the human. The embryo is a self-guiding entity; there is nothing else telling it what to do, so to speak. It is active, like the potter himself, molding clay into various things. The embryo guides its own cells to become this kind of cell or that. So, it has the capacity for self-development and it has a particular identity.(1) If you think about it, all humans have this active potential. I certainly don’t know anyone who is a perfect human; we’re all in a state of becoming something better (hopefully!) than we are now. (We won’t be perfect until we reach our final destiny – total communion with God in heaven.) So, the embryo is not potentially human. It is human. (It certainly isn’t a frog, a pig, or a mushroom, is it?)

Others bring into question when a human becomes a person; when does ensoulment occur? The short answer is that we don’t know, and I personally like to leave it at that. The Church has never pronounced an answer to the question because it is not something that has been revealed to us from God, and it cannot be discovered by science. Some say the moment of conception; others say other arbitrary points along the line of development. Are embryos persons? We don’t know. Are they humans? Yes, and they should be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other human life. [On a side note… are those in a persistent “vegetative” state (“brain dead”) persons? Have their souls left their bodies? We don’t know. Are they humans? Yes, and they should be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other human life.]

So you can see now why embryonic stem cell research is wrong. It involves the killing of a human life. Some might say that it’s okay to sacrifice a relatively few number of human embryos for the common good. (Sure, why not? The Nazis sacrificed a relatively few number of humans in their experiments in the concentration camps, and we got a lot of good knowledge out of that.) This misses the point about every human being made in the image and likeness of God; that’s what gives humans their inherent dignity. Not to mention that good ends (goals) don’t justify bad means (ways of getting to the goals). Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it involves murder of humans, which is always intrinsically evil.

What about adult stem cell research? Like I showed earlier, adult stem cells come from tissues that don’t require a human life to be destroyed to use them. It is perfectly legitimate and good to use these. Adult stem cells are less flexible than embryonic stem cells because they have already reached a certain point of differentiation. However, they are still quite useful and have the added advantage of, if taken from your own body, not being rejected by your body’s immune system. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are too flexible and energetic, making them hard to control. As a matter of fact, there have been absolutely no cases of any human being cured of any disease using embryonic stem cells. NONE! In animal trials, the cells multiplied out of control, causing cancer. However, with the use of adult stem cells, many people have been treated or cured of diseases, such as leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and spinal cord injuries.

I often wonder why celebrities and others continue pouring money into embryonic stem cell research and why various politicians and activists defend and promote it when it hasn’t produced anything useful. I’ve come up with two answers. First, maybe some of these people sincerely hope in the potential of the ever-flexible embryonic stem cell. They really think that if they just keep trying, they’ll find a way to make it work and cure every disease that afflicts mankind. This is a false hope, however, and a destructive one. Second, if scientists rejected the use of embryonic cells, they would have to eventually reject abortion. How can you say it’s not okay to kill a two-week old embryo but it is okay to kill a three-month old fetus? You can’t, logically.

In short, embryonic stem cell research is a life issue since it involves the murder of humans; Christians must denounce it. Adult stem cell research is a good endeavor that deserves Christian support.

[Note: There are many other issues that relate to the use of embryos, so perhaps I will post on them separately at another time; these include sperm donation/egg harvesting and gamete manipulation, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other infertility treatments, cloning, and surrogacy.]

(1) Benedict M. Ashley and Kevin D. O’Rourke, Ethics of Health Care, 3^rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2002), 125.

* I must give credit to Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. for much of the information in this post, as I heard it in his lecture on bioethics in Admont, Austria in June 2004. You can find some of his articles here.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

One of our grad school professors, Dr. Brant Pitre, a biblical theologian, wrote an interesting post on this topic. He shows that there is Scriptural evidence (in the book of Numbers) that some married Jewish women took a vow of perpetual virginity. Putting aside the usual arguments about the "brothers" of Jesus (which he quickly mentions and refutes, Scripturally), his thoughts are, at the very least, quite interesting.

Please read the post here.

The Immigration Issue, Revisited

JB posted on the immigration issue in his series on being a faithful Catholic in America here. I was reading Radical Catholic Mom's blog and saw that she was dealing with this issue in Alaska. She contacted a Representative for her state who is known for standing up for his Catholic values to call him out on his support of a bill that requires everyone to have identification to prove their "legal status" in the country and the state. You can read the post here.

A short excerpt:

I pleaded with Dirk [Rep Lynn's staffer] to use his pro-life principles as an example of how we are to approach the immigration issue. First, don't call them "illegal aliens." I don't give a flying flip if our [government] calls them that. We are Catholics and as such we do NOT believe ANY human is an illegal one, including immigrants and unborn children. Second, WHY WHY WHY are so many millions of people coming here illegally? WHY? When you look into that answer you have to get past the black and white of immigration. Third, if you cannot change your mind because you are convinced, do it because Jesus has some really nasty warnings about what will happen to us rich people who ignore the sufferings of the poor. Do it because we fear God and because we honor the dignity of the person.

Amen.

"Personal Relationship with Jesus"

If you've ever been asked the question, "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" and didn't know how to respond, I highly recommend this short post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a former evangelical, now Catholic priest. Here's an excerpt:

The problem I had was that I felt more and more that the 'personal relationship with Jesus' was more 'personal' than 'Jesus'. As I grew older and got a wider experience of Evangelical Christianity it all seemed rather sentimental and subjective. Not only were the different denominations idea of the personal relationship different, but every individual's personal relationship seemed as different as could be, and I naturally began to suspect that much of the , 'personal relationship with Jesus' consisted of sincere, but subjective emotions, and that the Jesus people had a personal relationship was often more of a reflection of their own inner desires, their own personality, their religious preferences and what they had been taught about Jesus than anything else.

I then began to meet a few Catholics who seemed to be closer to Jesus than anyone I had ever met, but they never spoke about a 'personal relationship with Jesus.'

Similar is the "Are you saved?" question. Maybe I'll come up with a post one day on how we as Catholics can respond to that one. Let me just say that it's perfectly acceptable to respond that you have hope in your salvation, or that you're working it out in fear and trembling. We dare not make presumptions on the mercy and justice of God.

Any thoughts you'd like to add?

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part V – Abortion

[This is part V of a series I began here. Part II is here Part III is here. Part IV is here. ]

In America, being Pro-Life means being against Abortion. I think we all know the Church’s teaching on abortion; nevertheless it is important to make sure we understand the depth of the issue. We must ask ourselves how the Catholic Consistent Ethic of Life applies to abortion so that we can understand the basis for the Church’s teaching on this. We must examine the current political and legal situation of abortion in our country. We must ask ourselves what the universal call to holiness demands of us in this situation.

ABORTION AND THE CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE

Life begins at conception. Biologists who study animals assume this is the case for animals. As soon as the sperm meets the egg, there is life. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply a “size matters” argument, claiming that just because a zygote is only a few cells it is not worth as much as you or me, by the same logic I would not be worth as much as some very large man or woman. This is obviously nonsense.

Some people claim that a fetus is not a life worth protecting because it is not a person. If it is not a person then it is no more wrong to kill a fetus than to kill a deer or being which lacks personhood. The argument arises over figuring out what determines personhood. One of the country’s most pre-eminent ethicists’, Peter Singer, associates personhood with consciousness. He therefore argues that even intelligent animals like dogs or dolphins have a greater dignity and right to life than babies (even up to 3 months old!) and those suffering from dementia or other mentally debilitating conditions!

This position is obviously utterly unacceptable and has contributed to our current culture of death. For us, as Catholics, we believe life begins at conception. Scientifically speaking, looking at DNA and genetic codes, we can clearly only say that this life is a human life. We cannot know when God creates the soul which formally makes the human life a human person, and the Church has never officially commented on this issue. However, we cannot simply abort a human life because we don’t know if it has a soul yet. For example, any hunter should be able to tell that if you see a bush rustling, but cannot tell what is behind the bush you don’t shoot into the bush because it could be a deer, but it could also be a fellow hunter. Similarly we can tell that from moment of conception there is human life. We cannot determine the moment of ensoulment therefore we do not know whether the life that is aborted is a person or not. So we must not, ever abort. Abortion is always an intrinsically evil act and is murdering the defenseless and the innocent. No person has the right to murder any other person. There are no exceptions.

ON CERTAIN CASES WHICH PEOPLE OFTEN CITE AS EXCEPTIONS

Many people who claim to be against abortion often site exceptions. They believe abortions should be legal in cases of rape and incest because the mother was not at fault in the conception of the child. However, this an argument based entirely on emotion and not on reason at all.

Certainly we must minister and care to the needs to those who have been so horribly violated. However, simply because someone has wronged them does not give them the right to kill some other innocent person. The baby is not guilty of anything. It is not the baby’s fault that the mother was raped. Why should the baby have to pay for someone else’s crime? We must fight the right to life of all persons, from conception to natural death, even if they were conceived through an act of rape.

ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF VOTING “PRO-LIFE”

For decades now the pro-life position has been associated with the Republican Party. People believe (like I used to) they have to vote Republican because the Republicans are against abortion. They tend to not even consider other issues. Abortion is the one and only issue for them. They believe that one cannot ever vote for a pro-choice politician. However, this is not the Church’s understanding or teaching.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms that a voter may in good conscience vote for a pro-choice politician provided that the person is not voting for that politician BECAUSE he or she is pro-choice. Therefore, a Catholic may, in good conscience, vote Clinton or Obama, provided that the Catholic is voting for them on other issues (immigration, war, etc.) and not because they are pro-choice. I believe this is an important distinction to make because it enables (and demands) us to consider the other issues to approach the elections more intelligently and more openly.

[In this particular Presidential election, none of the remaining primary candidates can claim to pro-life. Obama and Clinton are both strongly pro-choice. McCain supports embryonic stem cell research (which we will consider in the next post). Therefore we must look at other issues in determining for whom to vote.]

Finally, before putting all our eggs in the basket of overturning Roe v. Wade, we must consider the wisdom and prudence of that desire. Let me explain. As Catholics, the law should not matter to us as much as the actions, the moral decisions, of the persons in our country. Abortion has been legal for 30 years now. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow abortions would not stop tomorrow. Instead, woman seeking abortions and doctors performing abortions would go underground, and the government would be forced, if they wished to enforce the new law, to dedicate time, energy, money, and people to finding these underground abortion clinics and arresting those involved. It would quickly turn into a “war on abortion,” which would inevitably fail just as the wars on poverty and drugs have failed. It seems to me that, considering the current moral state of America, a prohibition on abortion now would be no more successful than the prohibition on alcohol back in 1919.

We do not need a pro-life president or change in law (although both of those things may be good) as much as we a need a renewed moral voice to change consciences of Americans. America’s problems are much deeper than that policy or this policy. We have become a morally depraved and selfish country, and if we do not want to go down the path of Roman Empire, those of us who know and understand the teaching of Christ and His Church must teach and educate those who do not about the importance of all these life issues. We do not need this or that president as much as need a resurgence of faith in the one, true God, a faith that needs to be lived out with integrity and with zeal.

Abortions must stop, but I do not believe a change in law will stop them. We must evangelize and catechize the individuals who may or may not be tempted to choose abortion.

May God forgive us the sins of our country and give us the grace to bring His Gospel to all who are lacking it.

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part IV - Immigration

[This is part IV of a series I began here. Part II is here Part III is here.]

We have already discussed that the consistent ethic of life, which follows naturally from being a Christian, demands that we always uphold the dignity owed to every person, if we truly wish to grow in holiness. This is because each person is a beloved child of God, regardless of their age, race, ethnicity, religion, or legal status. Just as it is wrong to treat people who are black as inferiors, it is also morally unacceptable to treat those from other countries as inferiors or as having fewer rights.

Frequently the issue of immigration is over-simplified. We often hear that “they” come here illegally to steal our jobs and our money; they drain our welfare and taxes, and cause crime rates to increase. Also, whenever we hear talk of immigration we always hear the term “illegal aliens” or simply “illegals.” However, Katerina Ivanovna explains how utterly un-Christian this phrase is:

I can personally attest as to how the debate always boils down to this: illegal immigrants are breaking the law when they enter the country illegally; therefore, they should not be given any type of ‘pardon’ or ‘amnesty’ or special treatment for that matter. It is as if entering the country “illegally” automatically transforms these people into criminals. No distinction is even given to what type of law these individuals are breaking—a civil law. Even so-called “Christians” have no problem saying that “lay and clergy– assert that they have moral license to break the law in order to hide illegal immigrants.” When I run a red light or drive over the speed limit and I am given a ticket, I do not automatically turn into an “illegal” driver or “illegal” citizen. The problem and controversy around the immigration debate has to do exactly with the adjective itself: “illegal” immigrants. In other countries, “undocumented” or “out-of-status” migrants are more proper qualifiers for individuals who are “in transition” within the immigration process.

Sadly, in the debate there is no question as to whether our current immigration laws are fair or whether the treatment of processed “illegal” immigrants is just or not. No question about why “illegal” immigrants do not receive medical treatment while in prison before being deported to their native countries. No question about why “illegal” immigrants die in their prisons before ever reaching their final destination. Hence, we see how the adjective “illegal” applied to the migrant subliminally gives a law primacy over a person within the immigration debate.

As Katerina correctly pointed out, we never hear anyone ask why so many Mexicans (for example) feel the need to risk their lives coming to the US. The majority of them are not in drug or human trafficking. The majority of them are not leaving a pleasant living situation with the intent of draining our economy or getting rich. Rather, their governments are not giving them the opportunity to support themselves or their families. Furthermore, we must realize that a majority of the governments from which the immigrants are coming (with the exception of Cuba) are governments which the US had a large role in putting into place. Also, US companies turn to factories in these countries to get cheap labor, but in doing so they take advantage of the poor and downtrodden, making them work long hours for very low wages, in effect breaking up families.

As we can see, we cannot simply call them illegals and throw them in jail. The majority of these people - and we must always remember that they are people - do not want to leave their home and their family but are forced to leave because of abusive governments, inhumane working conditions, and no living wage. Furthermore, a person cannot be illegal! An action is illegal, like theft or dunk driving, but those actions do not make the person illegal. That person remains a person with God-given dignity. This holds true for people who immigrate to America. They may break civil laws by doing so, but they are not, generally speaking, breaking any moral laws, and they certainly are not "illegal". They are persons created in the image and likeness of God, and they are good.


It is because of the plight of immigrants and their desperate need for Christian love and care that the Church (and Jesus) has always called on the faithful to be the hands and feet of Christ.

Some authoritative examples from the Word of God and from the Teaching of the Church should express the point more clearly than I ever could. Let's begin with the Old Testament:

"When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You will treat the alien who resides with you no differently that the natives among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God." (Leviticus 19:33-34)

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God!

Clearly, we can see the command of God to love immigrants even in the early Old Testament, and remember, just as the Hebrews were once aliens in the land of Egypt, so were our ancestors once aliens in America.

As one would expect, Jesus is more decisive on the matter, not only commanding us to love immigrants, but directly associating loving them with loving him:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me; naked and you clothed me; sick and you visited me; in prison and you came to see me... Amen I say to you, in so far as you did this for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me." (Matthew 25:35-40)

This is the Gospel of the Lord. Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ!

We as Christians, not Americans, are called to welcome those who are strangers in our land. We are called to care for them and to love them as we would love our Lord and Savior. Anything less is a rejection of our call to holiness.

Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Centessimus Annus explains:

"The Church's love for the poor, which is essential for her and a part of her constant tradition, impels her to give attention to a world in which poverty is threatening to assume massive proportions in spite of technological and economic progress. In the countries of the West, different forms of poverty are being experienced by groups which live on the margins of society, by the elderly and the sick, by the victims of consumerism and even more immediately by so many refugees and migrants." (emphasis mine)

John Paul II speaks of the Church's love for the poor. (Need we be reminded that "the Church" does not refer to a building or to "those old guys in Rome"?) By virtue of our Baptism we are the Bride of Christ, the Church, and to be part of the Church means to love the poor, the sick, and the immigrants.

Adding to this, Pope John Paul II says in his 1996 Message for World Migration Day:

"Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that "stranger" in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself."

Notice again that our Shepherd, the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, associates welcoming and loving the immigrant with being a Christian. Regardless of what any political pundit may say or think and regardless of the stress immigrants may put on our economy, the people of the God have always been taught, first by the Word of God in the Old Testament, then by the Word made Flesh in Jesus Christ, and most recently by our beloved Pope John Paul II, that we must love the immigrants, recognizing their plight and making efforts to comfort them, to welcome them, and to help them meet their needs.

Lent

Lent begins tomorrow with Ash Wednesday. As cradle-Catholics from New Orleans most of us know, at the very least on a shallow level, what that means: giving up something, no meat on Fridays , and crawfish boils. But what is the meaning of Lent? Why does the Church find it prudent to give this period of time before Easter.

Lent is supposed to be a time of conversion emphasizing prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. During lent we are supposed to be identifying and joining with Jesus' forty days of fasting in the desert before he began his public ministry. Lent is supposed to be a time during which make real and intentional efforts to rid ourselves of those habits and activities which hinder or break our relationship with Jesus.

Prayer is essentially conversation, relationship with Jesus.
Fasting is meant to discipline our bodies so that we learn that we are not required to scratch every itch. It teaches us the self-control requires to resist the temptations of sin, especially sins of the flesh (those sexual or gluttonous in nature).
Almsgiving is to remind us of the solidarity we have with all, especially the poor and marginalized. In giving to the poor we are giving to Jesus.

I will attempt to post further Lenten reflections over the next 40 days, but in the meantime, the following websites have some good reflections:
US Bishops
Growing in Virtue during Lent
Lent: FAQ's
A Catholic Life: Everything Lent
A Former Atheists Perspective on Lent