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

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part III – Racism

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

We have briefly considered the universal call to holiness, to which we should all, by virtue of our Baptism, respond with an honest effort to be saints. We have spoken of the consistent life ethic which reminds us of the inherent and irrevocable dignity of every person and serves of the foundation of all moral issues; now we can proceed to consider some of those issues that the US Bishops have spoken of as being problematic.

In its Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the USCCB lists racism as intrinsically evil, something that can never be supported. In this reflection I shall follow the lead of our shepherd, Archbishop Hughes, in his recent document, Made in the Image and Likeness of God: a Pastoral Letter on Racial Harmony. Archbishop Hughes indicates that, although the term “racism” generally draws forth wide ranging emotions and is often avoided in conversation, the Church has not hesitated to define it “as both a personal sin and a social disorder rooted in the belief that one race is superior to another.” Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "every form of social or cultural discrimination of fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."

Based on the Church’s characterization of racism as both a personal and a social problem, Archbishop Hughes adds that when it occurs on the personal level it generally takes the form of slurs, unprovoked fear, unfair stereotypes, etc., while institutional racism takes place in educational systems, judicial systems, and our housing and living situations. I think we are all on some level aware of these problems, even if we are much more comfortable ignoring them and forgetting about our own participation in them than confronting them. However, it is not enough for us to know in our heads that racism is wrong and what it looks like, we must understand why it is wrong and, if we are to take Christ’s call to holiness seriously, we must work to eradicate it from our own lives and to help those who are victims of it. Let us therefore consider in more depth the Church’s teaching on the issue.

The Word of God in Sacred Scripture teaches us that God created all humanity, male and female, equal and “very good.” Due to the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, all humanity, white, black, yellow, red, brown, etc., have fallen into a state of separation from God, which we daily live out in our selfishness and sinfulness. But, just as through one man, Adam, all of us inherit Original Sin, so through one man, Jesus Christ, all of us, brown, red, yellow, black, white, etc., have been redeemed and offered the gift of salvation. Christ does not differentiate by color, sex, age, wealth, health, etc. We are created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore we are all very good. As people who are part of the Body of Christ through our Baptism, we are called to be His hands and feet, which means we are called to be color blind, to love all other members of the Body of Christ and the Body of Adam (all humans including non-Christians) equally and without reservation. That is what Jesus would do.

Certainly, no serious political candidate supports racism or overtly racist policies. But I think we need to dig a little beneath the surface, especially given the appalling history of racism in the United States (Archbishop Hughes calls it our nation’s Original Sin!), where up until a few decades ago it was considered the norm for blacks to be treated as inferior. For what was once overt (obvious) in political and social discourse still lurks in the background, but remains covert (hidden), only rearing its ugly head occasionally– think of the Jena 6 scandal. This all begs an important question: if racism is real, but not overt, does this make it any less evil? Does this diminish our responsibility as Christians? I think not.

In fact, I think most (if not all) of us can see undercurrents of racism active at different times and situations in our schools, jobs, and relationships with others. We tend to be more fearful around black men than white men. Why is that? The implication is that we believe that people who are black are more violent than people who are white. This is scientifically and morally false. We tend to assume, again generally speaking, that people who are black are less intelligent than people who are white. Again, this is patently false. It is true, however, that nutrition, family environment, parental expectations, and perceived safety play large roles in academic achievement. Because of the Original Sin of our nation, people who are black also tend to have a lower socio-economic status. Therefore, people who are black tend to come from families who are less able to provide good nutrition (this is especially relevant during pregnancy), stable family situation (parents are more likely to be forced to work long hours to support the family), and safe environment (poor neighborhoods breed desperation which leads to crime).

Many people also claim prison statistics -- based on percentages of the national population, people who are black are more likely to be criminals and to be on death row -- to support their belief that people who are black are more violent, criminal, even more evil than people who are white (although we would never say it this way). However, the statistics are very misleading, and such a belief is again absolutely untrue and offensive to our God who loved each one of us into creation. Regarding the statistics, we first must not reduce the issue to merely an issue of skin color. Human behavior does not change based on skin color, but it does change based on poverty and living conditions.

“Ironically, one of the few areas of racial equality in the United States is drugs. Americans who are black and Americans who are white use them at essentially the same rate. The shocking disparities come in enforcement—from arrests, to charges being filed, to convictions, to length of sentences—where African American males go to prison at far higher rates for the same crimes than everyone else. We know this from systematic studies as well as the many examples of white conservative politicians whose own drug crimes, or those of their kids, result in no prison time, the same crimes that send thousands of young, poor, black males to prison for shockingly long sentences (see the Bishop’s “three Rs” statement on criminal justice for more on systematic injustice in sentencing generally). On the death penalty, even different rates of violent crime don’t explain differences. Just among those who commit murder, African Americans murders are far more likely to get the death sentence than white murders. The even greater disparity, however, is in the race of the victim—murdering a white person is many times more likely to get you the death penalty than murdering a black person. “ (from a comment by David Cochron on the blog Vox-Nova)

The point is twofold: 1) Most of our preconceived notions which denigrate people of races are often false and are misguided by overly simplified views of complex situations. 2) Jesus Christ demands that we move beyond the implied racism of our society. Regardless of race all persons are children of God and, as Christians, we are called to love all persons as ourselves. We are called to stand up for the dignity and rights of those who are subject to discrimination and prejudice. Again, it is what Jesus would do and it is what we, as Christians are called to do as we strive to live as saints.

"Going Green" and the Pill

As I watch all the efforts of corporations to "go green" and the craze in our country to consume organic, natural, or more healthful products, I can't help but see a paradox. Over 30% of women in the U.S. were on the Pill in 2002 (see here), presumably more now. The Pill uses artificial hormones to control a woman's fertility. So as we worry over what hormones are in the meats and milk we consume (see here), we willingly pump our bodies full of hormones to control fertility. I honestly don't get it. 

My husband's and my reasons for using natural family planning have more to do with our understanding of the meaning of human sexuality as God-given than not wanting extra hormones coursing through my body to "fix" my unbroken reproductive system, but there is a growing trend of health-conscious people - especially vegans and vegetarians - who recognize the paradox and are using some form of natural family planning or fertility awareness method.

As many are "going green" because they want to prevent global warming, I wander how many people are aware of the possibility of global infertility. Aside from the low fertility rate, that is the reproducing at such a low rate (less than 1.5 children per woman in most first-world countries, as far as I know) such that whole countries are in danger of not replacing themselves, there is another, scarier potential problem. With the high numbers of women on the Pill in addition to the tendency to "flush" pills down the toilet, there has been documented such high levels of synthetic estrogen in natural waterways that there are male fish becoming infertile and producing eggs! The question is how high the levels have to be to effect male humans. (See here, here, and here.) 

It's one thing to make a conscious decision not to reproduce, but it is another altogether to have your reproductive capabilities stolen from you. This is the stuff of science fiction. (Has anyone seen Children of Men?) It also reminds me of a hypothetical situation posed in one of my moral theology classes about a tyrant who puts some kind of contraceptive chemical in his country's water supply to prevent his people from reproducing. We tried to determine the moral licitness of actions of different people in such a situation (i.e. the couple who is aware there is contraception in the water and wants to contracept, the couple who is aware but does not intend to contracept, the couple who is not aware, the tyrant). Such a scenario may be less hypothetical than I realized. I wonder if the Culture of Death has become the tyrant.

Family Planning among Christians

I found a blog post from last year titled "providentialism, NFP, and contraception" in which the author discusses "the attitudes towards family planning and married sexuality" among Christians, which fall into three basic groups - giving the post its title. She makes several good points, and I would like to hear your thoughts!

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part II – A Consistent Life Ethic

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

In my last post I briefly discussed our universal call to holiness and the idea that all of us are called by our God to honestly try to become saints. This call to holiness and any desire we might have to answer that call should not stem merely from some command of an authoritative Church. Rather we should be motivated to strive for holiness by our love for our God. Jesus indicated this to us when he sums up the whole Old Testament with His two commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Mark 12:30-31)

This idea of loving the Other, be it God or neighbor, lies at the heart of all Catholic teachings on the political issues at hand. Be it abortion, embryonic stem cells, immigration, marriage, torture, war, etc., the Church’s understanding of these issues flow out of love. To help educate us on the universal implications of this love the Church teaches a consistent life ethic, which the U.S. Bishops describe in this way:

“Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, each person’s life and dignity must be respected, whether that person is an innocent unborn child in a mother’s womb, whether that person worked in the World Trade Center or a market in Baghdad, or even whether that person is a convicted criminal on death row. We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it protects and respects the life and dignity of the human person.” (USCCB, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, p. 13)

This means that in all that we do as individuals and in our institutions (families, businesses, communities, countries, etc.) we must always uphold and fight for the dignity of every human being involved. Jesus emphasizes the dignity of every person by associating all with him:

“Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'” (Matt 25:34-40)

Because we are all one body in Christ, because of our love for Christ, because of our universal call to holiness, we have the holy duty of upholding the dignity of all persons in all that we do. This makes things difficult for those of us who are trying to determine which candidate to vote for because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans uphold this consistent ethic of life. Stereotypically each party pushes their agenda on certain life issues, but both are also notoriously bad on other life issues. For example, one party claims to be pro-life but also pushes the death penalty and torture, while the other claims to stand for the poor while advocating pro-choice policies.

As we continue to investigate and consider the intrinsically evil acts which the bishops warn us about, we must strive to move beyond whatever preconceived notions we have developed after following the political leanings of our party of choice. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are living up to the call of holiness. Therefore, in educating ourselves about these issues we must move beyond these somewhat shallow political teachings and listen to the voice of Truth, Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. Let us continue to keep in mind Jesus’ consistent ethic of life and examine our consciences and our thoughts.

Part III: Racism]

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part I - Introduction

I am writing this in response to a call given by Archbishop Hughes, our shepherd and a successor of the Apostles, at a conference I recently attended. What follows is a reflection meant to help each of us examine and form our consciences to better enable us to live our lives as faithful Christian Catholics in America, specifically in preparation for the upcoming elections. I do not claim to have complete knowledge or understanding of the truth, but I do claim to be repeating what the Church teaches and demands of us as members of the Body of the Christ.

In his homily at the opening Mass for the 2008 Hoffinger Conference, Archbishop Hughes spoke of the universal call to holiness. He, as our shepherd, wants to remind each one of us that we are all, every single one of us, called to be a saint. Holiness is not reserved for a chosen few. God loves us unconditionally and wants us to respond to His gift of self with our own limitless gift of love for He who is Love. We all need to honestly strive to rid ourselves of our sinful tendencies, prejudices and preconceived notions, and to work toward sainthood.

This requires, among other things, that we learn to identify ourselves first and foremost as Catholics, as members of the Church which is the Bride of Christ and which is guided “in spirit and in truth” by the Holy Spirit. We must pray for the humility to submit ourselves to the wisdom and prudence of the Church’s teachings. We should not ignore or belittle the wisdom of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church in favor of the beliefs or standards or our nation, our political party, our school, or ourselves. We are not primarily Republican or Democrat, American or New Orleanian. We are Catholic, which means we are members of the body of Christ along with millions of other people from all over the world. Our primary love and allegiance belongs to Jesus Christ, our Savior and King
The Archbishop of Denver, who was also at the conference, put it this way,

“Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=953)

As Christians we should be the leaven which raises the morality and holiness of our community, indeed of our country, to higher levels of holiness. However, if we examine American society we cannot noticeably see the good witness of Christians in our culture. Instead of being witnesses to the Truth of Christ as the apostles were, we have tended to blend in with the rest of our society which can NOT rightly be called good or virtuous. Because of our Catholic identity and our universal call to holiness we must always inform and examine our consciences on the issues in our country and never settle for the opinions of the authorities in our preferred political parties or talk shows.

In light of this, the successors of the Apostles, our American Bishops write the following, “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions” (http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf). The bishops include the followings actions in this category: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genocide, torture, racism, unjust war and unjust immigration laws.

In the following days and weeks I shall attempt to offer reflections on some of these issues in order to better educate myself, and all of us, on them and to challenge to submit to the wisdom and guidance of Mother Church. I invite you all to participate in these reflections by sharing your thoughts in the comment boxes.

Part II: Consistent Life Ethic
PartIII: Racism
Part IV: Immigration

The Anthropological Structure of Faith

Below is my first esay submitted for my Fundamental Theology class....

“On the Anthropological Structure of Faith”

In The Nature and Mission of Theology, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger defines theology as “faith seeking understanding”, implying that theology necessarily entails faith.[1] But, does faith also entail theology? Despite the objections of Heidegger and Jaspers, who claim that because theology is connected with philosophy, and that faith has already answered all the questions, faith excludes philosophy, Ratzinger answers yes. Moreover, he claims that the anthropological structure of faith necessitates his assertion.[2]

Faith is one of the capacities of man which set him apart from the rest of creation. Because man (homo sapiens) can grow in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, he can also be convinced that something is a truth or a falsity. He can believe. Generally, when we speak of knowing something, we mean we are certain of its truth. We have assented to it. In many cases, this certainty is gained through a convincing experience, or set thereof, or by some scientific demonstration, which presents enough evidence to compel us into assent. However, faith must always be a free response of the will, not a forced reaction to evidence. Therefore, the assent of the believer occurs differently in the structure of faith, than assent to other forms of knowledge.

A Concise Dictionary of Theology refers to three different types of assent, taking its distinctions from John Henry Cardinal Newman. Many of today’s Christians “believe” with notional assent, meaning they accept the abstract ideas of the Truth, but without fully being touched and changed by it, or, put more practically, without living according to the Truth. However, the belief of true faith requires “full assent to truth, especially concrete rather than abstract truths”.[3] This real assent is the assent of faith which the early Christians claimed when they stated “I believe.”

When the Church fathers composed their statement of faith, they used the Latin word credo, “I believe.” Etymologically credo comes from the Latin words cor (heart) and do (to give).[4] Therefore, when they stated their belief in Jesus as Christ, they were giving their heart to him. Moreover, biblically, the word for heart corresponds with what St. Thomas Aquinas refers to as the will.[5] In other words, the ancient Christians testified that in believing in Jesus, they were giving their hearts, their wills, indeed their entire selves, to him, God enfleshed. But from what does this assent of faith come? To what exactly are we assenting?

Contrary to scientific knowledge or other types of certainty, the assent of faith comes from a personal encounter with God. He reveals himself to us, and we respond with the assent of faith. “Through being touched in this way, the will knows that even what is still not ‘clear’ to reason is true” and it assents to faith in God. “When the heart comes into contact with God’s Logos, with the Word who became man, this inmost point of his existence is being touched.”[6] Or, put another way, “just as a person becomes certain of another’s love without being able to subject it to methods of scientific experiment, so in the contact between God and man there is a certainty of a quite different kind from the certainty of objectivizing thought.” [7]

Therefore, in opposition to Heidegger and Jaspers, Cardinal Ratzinger rightly explains, “in the act of believing the assent comes about …by an act of the will, in connection with which the thought process remains open and still under way.”[8] In other words, although the heart has assented to give itself fully to the truth, because the assent has not come by means of reason, the thought process, the search for understanding, must strive to catch up with the assent of the heart and is therefore open, and, furthermore, spurred on, to search for deeper understanding. Within this search, what Thomas calls a contrary motion (motus de contrario), arises, which can either mislead the search for understanding and distract from the assent or can further “be the challenge summoning forth a deeper knowledge.”[9]

Reviewing the good Cardinal’s thoughts and reflecting on our own experiences of faith, we can see the uniquely human structure of faith, which requires those human capacities which indicate to us that we are indeed made in God’s image: willing, loving, and knowing. God has spoken his Word into our hearts. In response, we, being unable to deny the depth of his love, assent in our heart, our will, to faith in him. But, because our assent has been given by our heart and not based upon reason, our thought is ever striving to catch up to our assent of faith. In this striving to understand what the heart knows, thought must overcome this motus de contrario. In order not to get lost in our search, we must always refer back to the light of faith and Word of Truth, lest our seeking of understanding become errant. For, any movement which is contrary to the Eternal Word of Truth, which therefore will inevitably be of worldly thought, will, whenever viewed in perspective of the Eternal Word, be “motion in reverse after all.”[10] Therefore, wherever there is the assent of faith, and thus the contrary movement, there must also be theology so that we may overcome the motus de contrario and grow in knowledge and wisdom in support of our faith. Consequently, the assent of faith, which jumps ahead of thought inexorably “challenges thought and sets it in a restless motion that produces results,” that produces theology.[11]


WORKS CITED

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. “Faith and Theology.” In Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005.

____________________. The Nature and Mission of Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995.

Guengerich, Galen. 2003. “Living by Choice.” New York, NY: All Souls NYC. On-line. Available from the Internet, , accessed 19 September, 2006.

O’Collins, S.J., Gerald and Farrugia, S.J., Edward G. A Concise Dictionary of Theology, rev. and expanded ed. Macwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000.


[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995), 16.
[2] Id., “Faith and Theology,” Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005).
[3] Gerald O’Collins, S.J. and Edward G. Farrugia, S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology, rev. and expanded ed., (Macwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000): 20.
[4] Galen Guengerich, Galen. “Living by Choice” [sermon on-line] (New York, NY: All Souls NYC, 2003, accessed 19 September 2006,); available from http:// www.allsoulsnyc.org/publications/sermons/ ggsermons/living-by-choice.html; Internet.
[5] Ratzinger, “Faith and Theology,” 23.
[6] Ibid., 24.
[7] Ibid., 19.
[8] Ibid., 22.
[9] Ibid., 28.
[10] Ibid., 26.
[11] Ibid., 27.