From literature, television, film,
and music, authors, originators, and producers have used the theme of “the
enemy within” to describe problems within an institution, organization, or
society caused by its own members rather than by externs. This is not to say
that in all cases, the “the enemy within” was malicious or a traitor, but it
was an opponent to something of importance that was associated with and held by
the community with which it, the “enemy,” chose to associate itself. I am using
the term “enemy” as it is defined by the OED as “one who opposes” something.
The Church has found herself across salvation history to be such a community in
which persons claiming to be members have challenged core beliefs of the Church
arguing that these principles of faith were outdated, wrong, or flawed and in
need of abandonment. The Church in the United States, which is a local church
of the Universal Church, has been the target of such persons, the “enemy”
(i.e., those who are opposed) for some time. Evidence of this is particularly palpable
during the election seasons of the last several decades. The fact that I
disagree with certain views expressed by others who use the descriptor “Catholic”
to describe themselves does not mean that I hate them or want to fight them: it
means that I disagree with them and am opposed to their views on issues where
we have different, perhaps even diametrically opposite views.
There is for many of us a
correlation between principles of Catholicism and matters that are at the
forefront of public policy debates and disagreements of the day. Like those
with whom I disagree on these matters, it is important to offer the
perspectives I hold for the benefit and consideration of others. That is why I
write today to express a difference of opinion with two fellow Catholics, one
whom I know and one whom I do not. For purposes of my discussion, identity is
not essential to my posting (although it will be known by anyone who chooses to
click the hyperlink), but the positions they advance are. My disagreement is
not personal; rather, my opposition is to their perspectives and contentions
which I believe are flawed because their justifications for both are deficient
and miss something that objective reason would indicate to be otherwise. So,
here goes…
The first view [here] takes issue
with those bishops who took a strong and public stand on various initiatives
regarding the meaning of marriage and the legislative or other initiatives to
recognize same-sex marriage. The fact that individual bishops, episcopal
conferences, and the Holy See have “weighed in” on the matter and opposed these
initiatives and pointed out that these initiatives, if successful, will lead to
other problematic initiatives down the line does not make the bishops who made
statements along these lines “sarcastic.” The use of analogy is important in
public policy debate, and it is certainly an important element of practical
legal reasoning. The issues raised by the bishops were done with serious intent
in mind; they were not an attempt to be sarcastic. To consider the basis of
this contention in a legal context, who would have thought that Griswold would have led to Eisentadt; who would have thought that Roe would have led to abortion-on-demand?
To have raised the prospect of where landmark case progeny would travel might
have also been viewed as “sarcastic,” but look what happened. If this author
upon whose posting I am commenting had investigated further, he would know that
there are proponents of other forms of marriage who are preparing to advance
their causes once same-sex marriage takes deeper root.
Furthermore, to take to task
Catholics who are opposed to the same-sex marriage initiatives by arguing that
these persons are using precious resources “to combat marriage equality” gives
a meaning to the important word “equality” that is not sustainable or durable.
As I pointed out in my last posting a few days ago, there are profound reasons
for agreeing that same-sex relations that might be called marriage are not the
equal of opposite-sex relations. Yet, we live and toil in an age where the
simple mention of the term “equality” is all that one needs to do to make his
or her argument stick, or so it seems. Nonetheless, objective reason that is
constituted by clear, careful, and critical thinking will demonstrate that the
use of the term “equality” to advance to acceptability of same-sex marriage is a
mistaken use of the term’s meaning. To argue that bishops and other members of
society are engaged in problematic “combat” that will undermine “equality” is unreasonable.
To argue that these members of the Church should abandon what some term as “culture
war politics” does not grasp the reality of the situation nor the matters which
are at stake. The sound bite culture may find attractive such a phrase to
describe a position with which they disagree and which they wish to see
eliminated from the public debate, but the phrase “culture war politics” does
grave disservice to the robust duties that accompany the responsibilities and
rights of citizenship.
The further justification offered
by this writer that the efforts of bishops and many Catholics to oppose
same-sex marriage will “push[] younger generations of Catholics out of the
church [sic]” needs to be evaluated. This statement presupposes that “younger
generations of Catholics” understand and accept the first principles of the
faith with which they are associated. In fact, many, perhaps most, do not for
reasons I explained in my last post:
more and more young people are
being subjected to teachings which use the moniker “Catholic” but, in fact, are
not. As the “More than a Monologue” initiative partly sponsored by Fordham and
Fairfield Universities illustrated and which I have previously discussed on
these pages, nominally Catholic institutions of higher education, which have an
extraordinary influence on the young, are not teaching what the Church teaches;
moreover, these institutions are not exploring why the Church teaches what she
teaches in spite of assertions to the contrary. For the most part at many
institutions that claim the moniker “Catholic”, students are being exposed to a
shadow magisterium which is a corruption of rather than intellectual fidelity
to Church teachings on the neuralgic issues of the day including marriage.
While these young may be receiving a great deal of education, they are not
receiving the wisdom of the Church; hence, their knowledge of what the Church
teaches and why she teaches what she does is being eviscerated.
So, I don’t think it is the bishops
and those faithful to the Magisterium who are pushing the younger generations
of Catholics out of the Church.
The source relied upon by this
author to make his point insists that “Younger Catholics don’t want our faith
known for its involvement in divisive culture wars.” This assertion/justification
is also in need of careful evaluation. What do these young people understand
our faith to be about? If it is all about social justice as the strongest
voices of contemporary culture explain that loaded term, something crucial is
missing. Our faith certainly includes corporal works of mercy that are designed
to serve “the poor and marginalized,” but first and last it is about salvation
and repentance of sins. I think too many Catholics today, and not just the
young, have little or no clue about this core tenet. If they young are being “push[ed]…out
of the church,” the source for this has been misidentified.
I now come to the second
perspective [here] that requires a response. It begins by stating that the U.S.
Catholic bishops “took a beating at the polls” in last week’s election. I was
surprised to learn that they were on any ballot as part of a legislative
initiative or as candidates. It would be accurate to say that bishops supported
various initiatives that were parts of closely contested contests in which the
bishops had strong support amongst tens of millions of voters. I took solace in
the fact that this perspective acknowledged the Constitutional rights of all
persons (including bishops, priests, religious, and the lay faithful) to
participate in the political process and to debate the issues even when it
appears that one party or one candidate might favor particular issues and the
other party or candidate may not. When all is said and done, it is the issues
that are in the forefront; what the candidates support and do not support
follows.
The critique of this second
perspective was not the Constitutional right of the bishops and other Catholics
but rather what is effective and prudent about the tactics or strategies the
bishops and the allied faithful take. Considerations of prudence and
effectiveness are always important considerations for those who participate in
public life, but so is the truth and ensuring that the truth about the matter
under discussion is not sacrificed. To suggest that those bishops who remained
silent on the neuralgic issues for presumed reasons of prudence and
effectiveness and those who spoke out as being “political bishops” does a grave
disservice to the office of bishop. If we could ask him today, I think John Fisher
would agree with my take.
One also has to ask the honest
question: who is pushing the issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia,
etc.) that are being pushed? Is it the bishops, or is it those lobbies and
political organizations that have taken on the crusade of making dramatic
changes to society and its institutions? The truth of the matter is that the
bishops have spoken out on many issues of great importance, including those
dear to many Americans. However, when the bishops don’t concur with powerful
political forces about particular issues, the shepherds are incorrectly labeled
as “political”, i.e., meaning wrong, imprudent, and ineffective. While this
writer asserted that he was not “challenging church teaching” but “questioning
political strategy,” the rest of us have to consider the implications well
understood by Thomas More of the legal expression “qui tacet consentire”—silence gives consent. By remaining silent
(or prudent, if you prefer), would it appear to many fellow citizens that the
bishops were condoning or approving positions on crucial issues that are, in
fact, in manifest opposition to first principles of the faith? They need only
look at the example of Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna in the late 1930s to answer
the question.
To argue that parishes should be “free
of partisan politics” inaccurately captures what is at stake: fidelity to
Christ, His holy Church, and enduring principles of the faith. If the parish is
only a gathering place for “social justice” and doing good on certain issues
but not those bearing some controversy, the faith of such a parish is thin. The
bishops who disagree with this proponent are chided as not listening; but, to
whom should they be listening, to what should they be paying attention? I think
they are listening, and I think they are paying attention. Moreover, they
realize what is at stake, and a sufficient number of them have indicated their
acceptance of the responsibilities of their teaching office so that they are
speaking out and in a clear manner that is understandable by their fellow
Americans and fellow Catholics.
The second writer seems to argue
that if something is legal, e.g., abortion or same-sex marriage, the bishops
should leave it alone and move on. Our nation and our world have experienced
too many situations in which something was declared legal but was morally
flawed and contrary to the first principles of the faith. This is why Martin
Luther King, Jr. stated that he:
would agree with St. Augustine that
“an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two?
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made
code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code
that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas
Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and
natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades
human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because
segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
Should Archbishop Rummel have left
alone what was legal when he confronted the evils of segregation that were
legal, at least for a while? Surely bishops, clergy, religious, and the lay
faithful must reasonably expect that their actions or tactics may “enrage their
opponents,” and in Archbishop Rummel’s circumstance that was the case as it was
with Dr. King. But neither of these witnesses to Christ let threats of public
officials or the rage of some Catholics or other believers stop them from doing
what the faith required. The fact that the bishops of Massachusetts opposed the
move in that state to legalize same-sex marriage should not make us overlook
the revenge taken by advocates for SSM who, as this author suggested, “fought
exempting Catholic foster care and adoption services” on the grounds of “political
payback.” It was revenge for being Catholic and fidelity to the faith that led
to these consequences; moreover, the “political payback” was in reality
intimidation designed to remove the Church from its proper role in the realm of
matters dealing with public morality.
This is how tyrants operate; but
tyranny should not stop any of the faithful from the call to and the
responsibilities of discipleship. There fact that there are divisions within
society should not preclude the truth about important matters from being
spoken. The argument that there is no truth or different kinds of truth about
the same issue is no argument at all; rather it is an exercise of a will
unhitched from objective reason that wants to avoid truth and its objectivity
and its beneficial meaning for the common good.
I beg to differ with this author
when he suggested that the positions of the bishops on neuralgic issues “are so
weak that they cannot allow students to hear their opponents.” Frankly this is
not the issue. I don’t think any bishop would mind a program on a Catholic
campus or at some other Catholic institution, such as a parish, where the
faithful were fully informed of the issues and were given an accurate
presentation of what the Church teaches and why she teaches what she teaches in
opposition to the contrary positions of the day. Unfortunately we now live in a
culture where all too often positions that are opposed to core Catholic beliefs
are disguised as acceptable Catholic positions when, in fact, they are not.
Bishops, pastors, Catholic educators, and any other person who is faithful to
the Magisterium would see this as the case.
Finally, this second perspective
argues for a different “political strategy” by the bishops. If that means that
the bishops and any other faithful Catholic must sacrifice core teachings or
remain silent, this is not a strategy but a capitulation to the first
principles of Catholicism. While capitulation may be the safer course of action
for the near future, it is not the faithful course; rather, fidelity to Christ
and the teachings of His Church are.
RJA sj
