There is a line from the Book of Hebrews that says this: And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:24-25). The teaching is clear, we must come together each week for Mass and learn to live in deep communion with one another. We are not meant to make this journey alone. We need encouragement and exhortation, food for the journey, company and protection.
In the days of Jesus its was almost unthinkable for a person to make a lengthy journey alone. Once a person left the relative safety of the town the journey got dangerous. There were robbers lying in wait along the roads just looking for vulnerable targets. For this reason people almost always made journeys in groups.
This is a good image for the spiritual journey we must all make. Alone we are easy targets. We are vulnerable and without help when spiritual demons attack.
The Bible says: Woe to the solitary man! For if he should fall, he has no one to lift him up. (Ecclesiastes 4:11) Belonging to the Church and faithfully attending and being formed by her in a deep and meaningful way, has a powerful and protective influence.
There are many dangerous influences lying in wait for us on our journey. Frankly, without the teaching of the the Church and her Scriptures I would have made some pretty dumb mistakes and been mightily confused. As it is, I have communion not only with the current members of the Church, but I make the journey mystically with billions who have gone before, with Apostles, saints, and preachers and teachers of old who have handed on a glorious and wise Tradition, the Scriptures, and teaching; the cumulative and God-given wisdom of centuries and millennia. I do not walk alone, I walk with those who have made this journey before me and know the pitfalls as well as the good paths, the true and the good from the false and fraudulent.
The Words of an old hymn speaking of the Church come to mind:
Yet she on earth hath union
with God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly,
on high may dwell with thee.
And I also make this walk in deep communion with those here present. Yes, in my twenty-three years as a priest I have taught the people of God the Word of God, but I have learned far more from them than I ever taught them. Yes, I have learned from the people I serve what it means to have faith, to persevere. I have experienced correction when necessary, and encouragement in the struggle. And I will say that it is impossible to fully recount how my membership in the Church has blessed me. I could not begin to count the ways. I know my parishioners have prayed for me and that their prayer and example has put a hedge of protection around me. I pray for them too, and who knows what power my prayers have been for them?
Ah, but what of the sins of the Church? Even here I will say we have learned from our failures and struggles. Yes, in the Church, if we are faithful, we learn not only from good example, but even from the difficulties that inevitably arise in any community. We learn to be more patient and forgiving. We learn from the mistakes others make as well as from their gifts.
Don’t journey alone, it is dangerous. Find a parish, get involved and live in real communion with others who can lift you up if you fall, encourage you when you are faint of heart, instruct you when you wonder, and complete in you what is lacking. Alone, I am lacking, but together and with the Lord, we have all the gifts we need to get to the Promised Land of Heaven: Companionship for the Journey! And what a companionship: those here present, and mystically but very truly, those who have gone on before, all one in Christ Jesus.
On January 19, Pope Benedict addressed bishops from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, and the Virgin Islands. These U.S. bishops were in Rome for their periodic “ad limina” visits, which included meetings with the pope and Vatican officials, covering a wide range of pastoral matters.
His words provide some sober reflection for us. As is usually the case, I would like to provide excerpts of the Pope’s remarks from a CNS News Article and then present my own comments in red.
Pope Benedict XVI warned visiting U.S. bishops that “radical secularism” threatens the core values of American culture, and he called on the church in America, including politicians and other laypeople, to render “public moral witness” on crucial social issues.
This will call for greater courage and hard work than is evident in many clergy and laity in the Church today. Too often the instinct is to play it safe. And when we are outspoken it is only in the safety of like-minded family and friends. Public moral witness must begin with clergy but it cannot end there. Also public moral witness requires a deep commitment in terms of time and even money.
Increasingly for clergy, the pulpit cannot be a place for abstractions and generalities like “do good, avoid evil.” We have to speak clearly to the issues of our day and be willing to name them. Clear assessments like sin, mortal sin, hell, judgment, right, wrong, good, and evil, must once again find a place in our homilies. Further, we must name issues clearly, abortion, homosexual acts, fornication, contraception, neglect of the poor, greed, corruption and so forth. Ambiguity must give way to clarity. But clarity must also reflect charity. We are to speak the truth in love.
Parents too and every level of the laity must give clear moral witness to their children. Parents must be willing to raise and discipline their children and instruct them clearly in the faith and moral life. It is not enough to say what is taught, but good teaching must also address why. This takes courage and the sacrifice of time.
Catholics in general must be far more willing to enter the public square without apology or fear, and be willing to speak the truth in love. In so doing we must be willing to accept that we will be misquoted, misunderstood and ridiculed. We must accept that we will get it with both barrels and learn that, just because people are angry with us, does not mean we did anything wrong.
Opening with a dire assessment of the state of American society, the pope told the bishops that “powerful new cultural currents” have worn away the country’s traditional moral consensus, which was originally based on religious faith as well as ethical principles derived from natural law.
Yes, at only fifty years of age, I can remember a time when there was a general consensus on the basic moral issues. We had surely been wrong on race, but on most other matters there was a wide consensus that divorce, contraception, abortion, fornication, homosexual acts, disobedience and disrespect for authority by children, loud and obnoxious behavior, public lewdness, immodesty, and bad language were all wrong. I do not say we all lived these values perfectly in every way. But they were agreed upon benchmarks and were largely undisputed.
Moral consensus began to break down with the sexual revolution and anti-authority revolution of the late sixties. But that revolt was largely centered on the college campuses, and took a little longer to reach the suburbs. In short order however, we came to where we are today, largely devoid of wide consensus on the moral issues.
It is amazing how quickly the powerful cultural currents swept away the consensus and the religious practice that was at the heart of it. As I child I remember standing room only in the Churches. Now, there’s a lot of empty pews. It’s happened so fast. And yet not so fast that we cannot share some of the blame for our slow and rather inept response. While the world went crazy, the Church was largely inwardly focused, moving furniture, tuning guitars, and debating about authority and who could be ordained etc. While we squabbled, the West burned.
The cultural revolution happened on our watch and we share the blame.
Whether they claim the authority of science or democracy, the pope said, militant secularists seek to stifle the Church’s proclamation of these “unchanging moral truths.” Such a movement inevitably leads to the prevalence of “reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.” The pope drew an opposition between current “notions of freedom detached from moral truth” and Catholicism’s “rational perspective” on morality, founded on the conviction that the “cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning.” Using the “language” of natural law, he said, the Church should promote social justice by “proposing rational arguments in public square.”
Yes, the Pope has spoken before about the tyranny of relativism. For if there can be no appeal to reason, to shared values, and a reasonable sense of right and wrong, the only way to win through is not by an appeal to the intellect or heart, but, rather, by shouting the loudest, having the most political power and money. In a relativist setting one cannot appeal to reason to win an opponent, one must simply over-power them. This ushers in an increasing totalitarianism, where those with the most money, power and influence win.
The concept of natural law is dismissed and the beautiful and ancient appreciation that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reason, which is meant to teach and guide us, is lost. Devoid of this common and agreed upon font, competing groups seek increasing to impose competing visions by the raw use of government power, rather than by an appeal to reason. Power and impostion, not truth or reason, is the basis of many modern secular movements.
In effect, the Pope advises that we must simply stay the course and continue to appeal to natural law and propose rational arguments in the public square. While I do not disagree with the Pope, I might add that we are bound to experience some futility in this approach, if we are not willing to engage in some serious prayer and fasting, begging for a miracle, that the rock hard soil of this culture will finally soften to accept the seed of the word. Arguments, though multiplied in number, have proven ineffective in these unreasonable and stubborn times. Prayer, fasting and the witness of changed and transformed lives, has simply got to take a higher priority for the Church.
Coming at the start of an election year, Pope Benedict’s words were clearly relevant to American politics, a connection he made explicit by mentioning threats to “that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” In response to such threats, Pope Benedict said, the church requires an “engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity” with the courage and critical skills to articulate the “Christian vision of man and society.” He said that the education of Catholic laypeople is essential to the “New Evangelization,” an initiative that he has made a priority of his pontificate.
OK, pay attention. The Pope is saying the laity are key, for it is to the Laity that the transformation of the temporal order is entrusted. It’s easy to criticize bishops and clergy, and lots of ink has been spilled right here at this blog of how the bishop’s botch this or that, or have the wrong priorities, or have done enough, or haven’t said enough, etc., etc. Fine, but where are the laity? Well, they’re probably in a sanctuary somewhere distributing communion. The fact is that we have done a terrible job in ushering in a chief aspect of the Vision of the Second Vatican Council: that of bringing forth strong lay leadership specifically focused on the renewal of the temporal order. It’s just so easy to say, “Father ought to do/say something” or “The Bishop’s aren’t doing enough.” But in the end, nothing prevents the lay faithful from organizing and marching forth as leaven in this sickened culture. It is true that the laity should receive formation, and must stick to Catholic principles to retain the name “Catholic.” But, and I’ll just say it plain, there’s too much pew sitting going on. Saying “The bishops should do this or say that” too easily amounts to a cop out.
I’ll boast a little and say that in my parish we are intentional about training lay leaders to engage the temporal order. And I’ve got some good folks stepping up to engage the city around affordable housing, job creation, budget priorities, neighborhood reinvestment, corporate welfare and crony-capitalism where the baseball owners and convention center gets 100 million subsidy and neighborhood reinvestment gets cut to zero.
I know some of you will say, “Gee Father, sounds fairly left-wing.” OK but here comes the challenge. Where’s the “right-wing” version of this? The “left” has been doing this kind of work for decades. But what of the right? OK, there’s the March for Life, and we, in my parish, send folks and pass out the literature, and do 40 Days for life. But what else? Where were the trained leaders and organization on the “right” when it came time to oppose Gay marriage in DC? The diocese sent me down to preach on the dais at an emergency rally in opposition to the Gay Marriage Ammendment. And frankly, except for a few parishioners who graciously accompanied me at the last minute, I was all by myself. There were no Catholic organizations that showed up for the large rally. OK, I know, it’s all the clergy’s fault. “If only Father had said something at Mass…” But honestly the large group that gathered there didn’t depend on a pulpit announcement. They were part of a network of Black Protestant Churches connected by e-mail and old fashioned phone calls and they had been organized and were following the issue. Where is the Catholic equivalent of this standing army? We do reasonably well with pro-life, but we are poor when it comes to the other cultural issues.
And believe me, more is needed than to go down and shake signs in front of the state capital on a given night and go home. It requires daily work, lay people coming together meeting with legislators, and crafting legislation on cultural matters. There must be the forming of “think tanks” to inform and influence the culture, publish position papers, build political and social power and influence, file amicus briefs, and even inform and seek to influence the bishops where necessary and inspire action. But where is all this? About the only thing I can think of is the Catholic League, and their out there! But so much more is needed.
It’s so easy to blame the bishops and sneer at the “useless” clergy (as one on my readers recently opined). But really what is the game plan folks? The laity don’t have to wait for the clergy to found something or start it. The renewal of the temporal order is the primary work of the laity.
For the record, I am trying to bring some more conservative folks I know together, and jump start a kind of Catholic think tank devoted to public policy, a kind of more local Washington-based group devoted to the moral and cultural issues as well as the social ones. But honestly it shouldn’t have to wait for a clergyman to start it. My hope it to jump start things and then step back, for the temporal order belongs to the laity.
Do you see what the Pope is saying? We have a battle on our hands and troops are needed. If you find a good fight, get in it! This is a good fight, a fight for the Lord and for the health and future of our culture which we love and want to see restored.
Now let’s see if the combox fills up with complaints about clergy and the endless debate about what to do with Pro-Abort Politicians, or if there will be soldiers with ideas and visions ready to step up for battle and restore the temporal order for the Lord.
Sorry to be a little tough, dear readers, but, as you might notice, I’m trying to pivot the conversation away a bit from the usual focus: There’s plenty to criticize the clergy for, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but let’s not forget the essential role of the laity. What’s already going out there that’s good? What can be built on? What needs to be started? Who is willing to begin?
Generally, when I think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I presume that I will be seeking answers or insights into racial justice, and significant issues of poverty and the social Gospel. Yet recently, I came across some quotes which cast light on the relationship of science and faith, another critical issue in our time. Allow me to share three such quotes and then provide a little commentary of my own.
Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
From The Measure of a Man, 1958
To place this quote in a philosophical framework, Dr. King is here referring here firstly to the fact that the created world, including each of us is contingent. As a contingent being, I do not explain myself. I owe my existence to another, first of all my parents. Something and someone distinct from me, and often out of sight, is the reason for my existence. I neither explain myself, nor do I cause myself to be.
My parents are both deceased now. Thus they are out of sight, and not to be found in this world. Yet they clearly did exist in this world at one time, for I am here.
The whole created world also has this quality. It is clearly here. But it does not explain itself. It is contingent, and could just as well be as not be.
Scientists are able to trace currently existing things back only so far, and then it hits a wall. It can look back approximately 13.7 billion years. And the further back we go, the current stars and galaxies were but pure and very compressed energy. As we journey all the way back, all of creation was in an extremely hot and dense state of pure energy called singularity. Beyond this we cannot see.
What caused it to suddenly expand? What put it there in the first place? These are questions that lie beyond science and what Dr. King means when he says that everything we see is a shadow cast by what we do not see. And that which we do not see, beyond matter and space and time, we call God.
Dr. King’s quote also refers to something that philosophy calls efficient causality, and also, to some extent, formal causality. There are basically four kinds of causality distinguished in classical philosophy :
Material Causality – Material causality refers to the physical matter, to the raw materials that cause something to be, for example the bronze of a statue.
Formal Causality – Speaks to what a thing is intended to do or be based on what the intent of the maker or creator is in making it the way it is. For example a bronze statue has its form based on what it is meant to convey, perhaps a the likeness of a person. Hence the intent of an artisan to convey a likeness, say of Dr. Martin Luther King, will give rise, (or cause) the statue’s form in terms of shape, design, and other more specific features so that the final shape actually resembles Dr. King.
Efficient Causality – Refers to the external entity from which the thing or act first proceeds. That is, the primary source of the thing or action. In the case of a bronze Statue, the efficient cause is the artisan, the sculptor
Final Causality – speaks to that for the sake of which a thing is done, the end reason, the purpose, or end, that something is supposed to serve. In the example of our statue, the final cause may be beauty itself, or to inculcate a memory of the person the statue recalls.
Perhaps you can see that the physical sciences are best at dealing with material causality but not well equipped at all to answer questions related to intent (formal cause), ultimate origins (efficient cause) and ultimate ends or purposes (final cause). Science is good at answering questions like “what” and “how (from a material point of view),” but poor at answering the question “why” and dealing with the issues of intent and the ultimate end of things.
Dr. King’s quote here discloses the limits of science; It can investigate the shadows, but it cannot see beyond to the one who casts the shadows.
Despite these noted limits to material sciences, there are many in our time who refuse to admit there is anything beyond what the physical sciences can measure. To use Dr. King’s analogy, while investigating the shadows, they deny, in effect, that there is anything casting the shadow. They deny there is a world beyond the material world that the physical sciences measures.
Let me be clear that not all scientists, or even most, do this, but those who do so are often loud and public. I will also grant that the physical sciences, as disciplines, must limit their study and conclusions to the physical world. But there is an error called “scientism” which claims there is no real or valid knowledge beyond what the empirical and physical sciences can prove. This is a horribly reductionist view, but it is gaining popularity today.
But let us also be clear, the universe does not explain itself. It’s existence is contingent and depends on someone or something outside itself to explain its exists. If science can investigate the “shadows” then something must be casting the shadows. That something (Someone) we call, God.
Where science cannot go, theology, faith and philosophy can, pondering the questions of what lies beyond the physical. We call this the metaphysical (meta=beyond), and it examines and ponders questions of design and intent, purpose, some of the qualities of the designer, ethical responses etc., all based on the premise that creation is intelligible and that intelligibility bespeaks intelligence. We strive to learn of the intelligent Creator who lies beyond, based on what he has created.
As such faith and theology (and to some extent philosophy) do not compete with science, they compliment it. And this leads us to Dr. King’s second quote:
Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism, and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.” – Strength to Love
Yes, both disciplines are needed. Without science, faith can devolve away from reality into mere abstractions, generalities and ideas. But God has always insisted that we live in the very physical world he has created. We ignore physical reality to our peril. The Catholic Faith, in particular, emphasizes the incarnation, that the Word became flesh. Further we reverence creation and make extensive use of it in our worship and we speak of the “book of creation,” thereby indicating that we see creation as a revelation from God. If we can learn of this created world, we can discover more of God who created it. Hence, true faith values science an the insights it provides. And since the truth is ultimately one, true faith should not fear true science.
But science needs faith too, for science runs the risk of idolizing itself. To think that matter is all there is, is a serious and reductionist error. Even before debates of an existing God, science must admit that justice cannot be found under a microscope or weighed in a balance. Love does not tip physical scales. Mercy is not found on the table of elements. Longing cannot be measured by an electric meter; neither can loyalty, bravery, selflessness. Though not physical, these things are very real. And even if science can claim to find a certain area of the brain which lights up when these realities are considered, science cannot explain the origin of these non-material concepts and realities or where they come from in a purely material world. There is simply more to life than matter.
Dr. King also warns of the moral nihilism that can result if science, or politics refuses to admit the existence of a higher authority beyond and above itself. And this leads to the third quote:
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. – Strength to Love 1963
Yes, science and technology are wonderful things. But if they are a closed system, unanswerable to anything higher or beyond, the “possible” becomes its own justification. Science without ethics or morals, without a higher end to which it is subject, can too easily devolve into devilish destruction. That something is possible, does not make it right or proper. But our science can fuel our pride. And while pride is not a scientific error itself, science unchecked by the notion that we are accountable to justice, and ultimately to God himself, can lead to some very dark places. The partial control that science supplies is no control at all if we cannot control our very selves.
Just a few thoughts on Science and faith based on some Quotes by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
One of the bigger mistakes people make in reading Scripture is that they read it as a spectator. For them Scripture is a collection of stories and events that took place thousands of years ago. True enough, we are reading historical accounts.
But, truth be told these ancient stories are our stories. We are in the narrative. You are Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Deborah, Jeremiah, Ruth, Peter, Paul, Magdalene, Mother Mary, and, if you are prepared to accept it, you are also Jesus. As the narrative we read unfolds, we are in the story. We cannot simply watch what others say or do or answer. For what Peter and Magdalene and others did, we do. Peter denied and ran. So do we. Magdalene loved and never gave up, should should we. Magdalene had a sinful past and a promising future, so do we. Peter was passionate and had a temper so do we. But Peter also loved the Lord and ultimately gave his life for the Lord. So can we. Jesus suffered and died but rose again and ascended to glory. So have we and so will we.
The scriptures are our own story. We are in it. To read scripture as a mere spectator looking on is to miss the keynote. Scripture is our story.
In the light of this keynote there emerges another very important and powerful key to unlocking the text. The key is simply this: Answer the Question! Among the many things Jesus did, he asked a lot of questions! And whenever you read the Gospels and Jesus asks a question, answer it! Do not wait to see what Peter or Magdalene, or the Pharisees or the crowd say for an answer. You answer the question, in your own words. This brings Scripture powerfully alive.
So twenty years ago Bishop John Marshall, Bishop of Burlington VT., and later Springfield Mass compiled a book: But Who Do You Say That I Am? In the book he collected and listed all the questions Jesus asked in the Gospels. And he encourages us to answer the question. Bishop Marshall, in listing the question, gives extra verses for context and adds brief commentaries. However, I would like to list just the raw questions.
I will give the verse reference so you can look it up. But, unless you really think it necessary, avoid looking it up at first. Just let the question meet you where you are right now. The question may mean something for you that is very different that its original context. But that is OK. Just pick a question, read it, consider it and answer it, by talking to the Lord.
Read the list slowly, perhaps over days or weeks, often taking just one question at a time. I have attached a PDF version of the List here: 100 Questions that Jesus asked and YOU must answer. Again, ponder each question. Answer each question prayerfully and reflectively. This is not the complete list of questions but it is surely food for thought. Now, answer the questions:
100 Questions that Jesus asked and YOU must answer:
And if you greet your brethren only, what is unusual about that? Do not the unbelievers do the same? (Matt 5:47)
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your lifespan? Matt 6:27
Why are you anxious about clothes? Matt 6:28
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye yet fail to perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? (Matt 7:2)
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)
Why are you terrified? (Matt 8:26)
Why do you harbor evil thoughts? (Matt 9:4)
Can the wedding guests mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them? (Matt 9:15)
Do you believe I can do this? (Matt 9:28)
What did you go out to the desert to see? (Matt 11:8)
To what shall I compare this generation? (Matt 11:6)
Which of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Matt 12:11)
How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and take hold of his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? (Matt 12:29)
You brood of vipers! How can you say god things when you are evil? (Matt 12:34)
Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Matt 12:48)
Why did you doubt? (Matt 14:31)
And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt 15:3)
How many loaves do you have? (Matt 15:34)
Do you not yet understand? (Matt 16:8)
Who do people say the Son of Man is? (Matt 16:13)
But who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life and what can one give in exchange for his life? (Matt 16:26)
O faithless and perverse generation how long must I endure you? (Matt 17:17)
Why do you ask me about what is good? (Matt 19:16)
Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink? (Matt 20:22)
What do you want me to do for you? (Matt 20:32)
Did you never read the scriptures? (Matt 21:42)
Why are you testing me? (Matt 22:18)
Blind fools, which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred….the gift of the altar that makes the gift sacred? (Matt 23:17-19)
How are you to avoid being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:33)
Why do you make trouble for the woman? (Matt 26:10)
Could you not watch for me one brief hour? (Matt 26:40)
Do you think I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than 12 legions of angels? (Matt 26:53)
Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? (Matt 26:53)
My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? (Matt 27:46)
Why are you thinking such things in your heart? (Mark 2:8)
Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed rather than on a lamp stand? (Mark 4:21)
Who has touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)
Why this commotion and weeping? (Mark 5:39)
Are even you likewise without understanding? (Mark 7:18)
Why does this generation seek a sign? (Mark 8:12)
Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and still not see? Ears and not hear? (Mark 8:17-18)
How many wicker baskets full of leftover fragments did you pick up? (Mark 8:19)
[To the Blind man] Do you see anything? (Mark 8:23)
What were arguing about on the way? (Mark 9:33)
Salt is good, but what if salt becomes flat? (Mark 9:50)
What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3)
Do you see these great buildings? They will all be thrown down. (Mark 13:2)
Simon, are you asleep? (Mark 14:37)
Why were you looking for me? (Luke 2:49)
What are you thinking in your hearts? (Luke 5:22)
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I command? (Luke 6:46)
Where is your faith (Luke 8:25)
What is your name? (Luke 8:30)
Who touched me? (Luke 8:45)
Will you be exalted to heaven? (Luke 10:15)
What is written in the law? How do you read it? (Luke 10:26)
Which of these three in your opinion was neighbor to the robber’s victim? (Luke 10:36)
Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? (Luke 11:40)
Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbiter? (Luke 12:14)
If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest? (Luke 12:26)
Why do you not judge for yourself what is right? (Luke 12:57)
What king, marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king marching upon him with twenty thousand troops? (Luke 14:31)
If therefore you are not trustworthy with worldly wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? (Luke 16:11)
Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God? (Luke 17:18)
Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? (Luke 18:7)
But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth? (Luke 18:8)
For who is greater, the one seated a table or the one who serves? (Luke 22:27)
Why are you sleeping? (Luke 22:46)
For if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry? (Luke 23:31)
What are you discussing as you walk along? (Luke 24:17)
Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter his glory? (Luke 24:26)
Have you anything here to eat? (Luke 24:41)
What are you looking for? (John 1:38)
How does this concern of your affect me? (John 2:4)
You are a teacher in Israel and you do not understand this? (John 3: 10)
If I tell you about earthly things and you will not believe, how will you believe when I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3: 12)
Do you want to be well? (John 5:6)
How is it that you seek praise from one another and not seek the praise that comes from God? (John 5:44)
If you do not believe Moses’ writings how will you believe me? (John 5:47)
Where can we buy enough food for them to eat? (John 6:5)
Does this (teaching of the Eucharist) shock you? (John 6:61)
Do you also want to leave me? (John 6:67)
Why are you trying to kill me? (John 7:19)
Woman where are they, has no one condemned you? (John 8:10)
Why do you not understand what I am saying? (John 8:43)
Can any of you charge me with sin? (John 8:46)
If I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46)
Are there not twelve hours in a day? (John 11:9)
Do you believe this? (John 11:26)
Do you realize what I have done for you? (John 13:12)
Have I been with you for so long and still you do not know me? (John 14:9)
Whom are you looking for? (John 18:4)
Shall I not drink the cup the Father gave me? (John 18:11)
If I have spoken rightly, why did you strike me? (John 18:23)
Do you say [what you say about me] on your own or have others been telling you about me? (John 18:34)
Have you come to believe because you have seen me? (John 20:29)
Do you love me? (John 21:16)
What if I want John to remain until I come? (John 21:22)
What concern is it of yours? (John 21:22)
After all this you might have a few questions for God:
Consider for a moment if you or I were to plant an acorn and then water it daily. Would we not be gravely disappointed if, within the space of a year, that acorn remained wholly unchanged, i.e. remained just an acorn? We may as well have planted a stone. Of course what we expect to see in due season is the shoot of a new oak tree, and next the leaves. And in the course of years we hope for, and expect, a mighty oak tree to spread its growing branches and to continue to grow each year.
Mysteriously too, everything that oak tree becomes was contained in the seed of that little acorn. Where we to plant an acorn, it would surely be shocking to see a bird, or a fish, or a person, emerge from the soil. Even stranger would it seem for the acorn yield an oak, but then suddenly that small oak tree shape-shift or morph and become a dolphin. Such things just don’t happen. An acorn contains the nature of an oak tree and, though its origin is humble, it becomes a mighty oak, just that, and only that. It does this in stages, to be sure, but it does not suddenly shift its shape or form and become something other than a tree. So the tree develops and becomes more and more itself.
It is the same with doctrine. The Lord planted the seed of his Word and teaching in the soil of our hearts, and in the heart of the Church. And surely, as the centuries have gone by, the same Lord has seen to it that the seed of his teaching should grow and develop in stages, as the Church authentically reflects on it, and as it is watered by the Holy Spirit. Surely the Lord would not be pleased if, having planted the seed of his truth, it were to have remained just a seed.
And thus, in the early centuries as the seed of God’s Word and teaching developed, as the Church hammered out the doctrines of the Trinity, of Christ, of Grace, of the Sacraments, of salvation and so forth. And thus the truths of these things, contained in seminal form, in Scripture and Tradition, grew to greater maturity and began to spread their branches over the Church.
We call this the Development of Doctrine
But note this, the teachings became what they already and always were. They did not spring up as one thing and morph into another. Neither did they come from nowhere. All the Church’s teachings come from the one seed of God’s Word and truth, a seed sown by God himself, in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. We do not invent new truth, nor does the truth alter itself.
St. Vincent of Lerins says this of the Development of Doctrine:
Is there to be not development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale…..But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alternation means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person…..Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood….the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
….In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church……there should be no inconsistency…but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also. (First Instruction)
This understanding of doctrine should lead us to a balance that rejects sudden and and inauthentic innovations that respect neither authenticity or continuity; but the same balance we seek should also lead us to reject a notion of the Church as utterly frozen in place, and where we harken to some golden age whence the Church can never emerge or grow.
Hence in recent times we have risked what some have called the “Hermaneutic of Discontinuity,” wherein some have proposed thinking and practices that do not flow from authentic growth, and are not a development of doctrine, but a denial of it. Recent Popes and the Magisterium have had to summon many back to the true fonts of our faith. The publishing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and numerous corrective documents, both doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical, have been necessary mechanisms in this summons.
But also to be avoided is what might be called a kind of “archeologisim” that indiscriminately favors the liturgical practices, doctrinal expressions, and/or disciplines of the ancient and early Church, or of some other chosen “golden age” and dismisses many later and legitimate developments. An acorn is not meant to stay and acorn, a young man is not meant to say a young man, and the Church and her doctrine are not meant to stay undeveloped and seminal.
And thus the “Development of Doctrine” is essential to the Church’s life. But this development always respects the true nature of the seed of doctrine that was sown by Christ, and the Apostles. And no true development of doctrine can proceed apart from the growth of the original seed, sown by Christ and his Apostles, and nurtured by God in his Church. There is an ancient maxim: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est (Let nothing new be introduced, except what has been handed down). Hence there is not to be some new or separate growth that springs up from no where, but only the steady growth and maturity that respects continuity, and is linked back to what Christ sowed.
During the Superbowl I saw a commercial for the NFL that actually inspired this post. In this video you will see football in its early stages. There are differences, but all the essentials (the seed) are there. As the player runs the field, he also runs the years. And while it is clearly the same game, (football has not morphed into car racing or something else), there is a clearly a development in everything, from pads and uniforms, to tactics, stadium design, and even the fans. So the essentials are not rejected, they just grow and become more mature, more refined, more developed.
The readings at daily Mass currently focus on the kingship of Solomon. Perhaps the high point of his life was, when presented the opportunity to ask anything whatsoever from God chose not gold or glory, but Wisdom. Today we read of the Visit of the Queen of Sheba and saw a description of his Court and Kingdom in all its glory. Her early years are a portrait of a man deeply rooted in God. But later in life Solomon turned from his first love and his infidelity ultimately led to divided kingdom. It is a moral tale that contains a warning for us all. Let’s review the basics of Solomon’s life and ponder the lessons.
Solomon was Israel’s third King. He was also known as Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord). His forty year reign is regarded as Israel’s golden age. It was an age of prosperity and national unity. But in the end, his reign ended disastrously, he began to oppress the people, multiplied wives and introduced pagan worship.
Solomon was the second son of David and Bathsheba. However, David had other wives and sons by them. Solomon was actually the 17th of 19 sons of David. This hardly made him the most likely son to succeed his father as king. However, through the court intrigues of his mother, and the support of Nathan the prophet, who both took advantage of David in his old age, Solomon was named king in 961 BC against Adonijah the presumed successor. Solomon swiftly and ruthlessly established his power against Adonijah, having his brother executed on a pretext. This act, along with the execution or banishment of Adonijah’s supporters in the military had repercussions throughout Solomon’s reign. It created military rivals on the northern edge of Israel that were something of a nuisance and may explain why Solomon raised a large army as we will see later.
Despite all this, Solomon experienced a vision from God early in his reign. He was at the altar of Gibeon offering extensive sacrifices to God. And this is where we pick up the reading from Mass this past Saturday Morning:
In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream at night. God said, “Ask something of me and I will give it to you.” Solomon answered: “You have shown great favor to your servant, my father David, because he behaved faithfully toward you, with justice and an upright heart; and you have continued this great favor toward him, even today, seating a son of his on his throne. O LORD, my God, you have made me, your servant, King to succeed my father David; but I am a mere youth, not knowing at all how to act. I serve you in the midst of the people whom you have chosen, a people so vast that it cannot be numbered or counted. Give your servant, therefore, an understanding heart to judge your people and to distinguish right from wrong. For who is able to govern this vast people of yours?” The LORD was pleased that Solomon made this request. So God said to him: “Because you have asked for this–not for a long life for yourself, nor for riches, nor for the life of your enemies, but for understanding so that you may know what is right– I do as you requested. I give you a heart so wise and understanding that there has never been anyone like you up to now, and after you there will come no one to equal you. (1 Kings 3:5-12)
And the Lord did indeed grant Solomon great wisdom. 1 Kings 4:30-32 notes that his wisdom surpassed all the people of the east, and also Egypt, and credits Solomon with 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. Many of these have come down to us in the biblical books authored by Solomon: Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and his possible editing of Ecclesiastes. Leaders from throughout the world sought out Solomon for his wisdom and counsel, most notably the Queen of Sheba.
Solomon was also noted as a superb statesman who had a great capacity to forge trading relationships with foreign leaders. Trade expanded widely during his reign. But these foreign entanglements may well have been the first sign of trouble, for they led him to take many wives. This was a common practice of the day for Kings. And yet, the Book of Deuteronomy warns kings and commands them not to do three things:
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. (Deut 17:16-17)
Solomon ended up breaking all three of these commands.
1. He multiplied wives. In multiplying wives Solomon took many of them from the pagan territories around him. His wives included Hittites, Maobites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Ammorites. They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. (1 Kings 11:2). The Scripture notes that in the end he had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11:3).
This not only demonstrates his lust but also his foreign entanglements. These pagan women brought with them their pagan deities and, in the end, they negatively influenced Solomon’s own faith. At the dedication of the Temple God warned Solomon:
But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. (1 Kings 9:6-7).
Solomon failed to heed this warning and through lust, greed for trade, and fascination with things foreign and pagan, he turned away from the Lord and began to allow pagan worship, and pagan altars to be built in Israel and even built them himself (1 Kings 11). Of all his sins this was clearly the most egregious and the author of 1 Kings indicates it is the main reason God turned his favor from Israel:
So the LORD said to Solomon,“Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen (1 Kings 11:11-13)
2. He multiplied gold and silver – Solomon solidified a large central government that cut across tribal boundaries. He also engaged in a massive building campaign to include the building of the a large royal complex, palace, fortifications and the Temple. He built large and opulent buildings. But the combination of a large central government, an extravagant palace life, and extensive building projects weakened the national economy, with high taxes and conscripted labor. The queen of Sheba who was fabulously wealthy herself remarked on visiting Solomon: Your wisdom and prosperity surpasses any report I which I have heard (1 Kings 10:7). Not only did the high taxes cause resentment but the centralized and growing government offended against the Jewish tribal system, which was used to a more local governance. Increasingly Solomon offended against subsidiarity by interfering in local affairs through his officials.
3. He Multiplied Horses– This is a Jewish expression for amassing a large army. In taking the kingship away from Adonijah, Solomon had acquired inveterate enemies from the military commanders who had supported Adonijah. They camped in the north and often harassed Israel. Perhaps for this reason, but more likely for pride, Solomon amassed a huge army including 12,000 horsemen and 1,400 charioteers. This, despite never going to war, during his reign. The problem with an extremely large army is that, not only is it expensive, but it also required a draft to conscript men into service. This caused resentment among some and the absence of large numbers of men from their families and work at home.
Consequences! – As God told him, the legacy of his turning away, was a divided kingdom. In the reign of Rehoboam, his son, the Kingdom of Israel divided from Judah, as a result of Solomon’s increasingly oppressive policies. When Rehoboam followed his father’s misguided policies the ten tribes in the north had enough, and they divided from Judah. The great unified Davidic Kingdom had ended and within less than 200 years Israel (721 BC) and later Judah (587 BC) were invaded and destroyed.
Of Solomon’s sad end Scriptures says:
How wise you were when you were young, overflowing with instruction, like the Nile in flood! Your understanding covered the whole earth, and, like a sea, filled it with knowledge. Your fame reached distant coasts, and you were beloved for your peaceful reign…. But you abandoned yourself to women and gave them dominion over your body. You brought a stain upon your glory, shame upon your marriage bed, Wrath upon your descendants, and groaning upon your deathbed. Thus two governments came into being (Sirach 47:14-21).
The story of Solomon is a sad object lesson, a moral tale. Failing to heed God brings destruction. And Solomon systematically failed to heed God.
What turned Solomon from the right path? Was it greed? Yes. Was it the foreign entanglements ignited by that greed and desire for power? Yes. Was it corruption by the world that greed, foreign entanglements and admiration of foreign ways caused? Surely. Was it lust? Clearly. Was it the inappropriate relationships and marriages that the lust caused? Yes. Did Solomon come to love the world more than God? Surely. Did lust and greed cause him to make steady compromises with the world? Without a doubt. And ever so slowly, and perhaps imperceptibly at first, he began to turn from God.
But Solomon’s story could be the story of any of us if we are not careful to persevere in the ways of God. Lust, greed, fascination with the world, these are human problems. I have seen people who are close to the Lord, drift away due to worldly preoccupations, bad and ill conceived relationships, career dominance that eclipses vocation, and just through accumulation of bad influences from the TV and Internet. Prayer and Mass attendance slip away. Bad moral behavior gets excused, and ever so subtly we turn less to God, and more to the gods of this world.
It is the road that Solomon trod. The great and wise Solomon, once close to God’s heart and preferring nothing of the world to God’s wisdom. But a man who died smothered in wealth, sex and power. A man whose heart turned from God.
Call no man happy before his death, for by how he ends, a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev 2:4-5)
But he who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:13)
What political party is the Catholic Church? Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats.”
The move by the Bishops to inform the Catholic Faithful on the Mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that all organizations, including religious ones, must pay for contraceptives, abortion-inducing “medicine” such as the morning after pill, and sterilizations, has been interpreted by some as a raw political move. To be fair, this move by the Administration is so egregious that many political liberals and conservatives stand largely together in calling for the HHS Mandate to restore the historical religious exemptions that have always marked such policies.
Anti-Obama? But there remain some in this country who see the move by the Bishops as merely “anti-President Obama” and “another example” of the conservative Catholic Church showing itself a mere outpost of the Republican Party. Others, like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sibelius, though Catholic, stand, it would seem both politically AND religiously against the Church.
And thus, this may be a moment to ask, what party is the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps Republican!? Really? A lot of Republican readers of this other blogs would beg to differ, and have often written here with annoyance to described the Bishops as “liberal” and have indicated disgust at how many Catholics vote Democrat. And Catholic Democrats too take annoyance at the Bishops for being too “conservative” on many issues and not bold enough in matters of Social Justice and the Social teachings of the Church. The fact is, as a huge Church of 70 million, Catholics are as diverse as America. Much to the chagrin of many Catholics themselves who often see their differences as a serious departure from the Gospel on the part of their opponents.
The fact is that the real goal for the Church is to be Catholic, across the board: vigorously pro-life and clear on the sexual and life issues, working to strengthen marriage and the family, vigorously advocating for the poor and immigrants, aware of and advocating all the social teachings, fully embracing subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, standing fore-square against the violence that so permeates our culture, generous, merciful and forgiving; and willing to work in communion with those who authentically advocate these Catholic Principles, even if they focus on some of them in particular. Pro-life Catholics should rejoice that others work for and advocate for the poor, and advocates for the poor should rejoice that some fight for life and to end abortion. Together we can cover all the bases.
The goal is for every Catholic to learn the Catholic faith and be a principled adherent to the faith prior to any political allegiance, or worldview. Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is God and He does not fit into our little categories. Neither does the Church. And hence we are to some extent an “equal opportunity annoyer.” And while we may align with the views of certain political parties and groups in certain matters, we are just as likely to stand opposed to other views of the very same party in other matters.
Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:
I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined.
True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love the her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any on world agenda or party.
In the end we are called to be those who are “simply Catholic.” Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters (e.g. how best to care for the poor) that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt. And while staying in a dialogue with our Bishops, we must also accept their leadership and respect their insights as those designated to teach, govern and sanctify. In the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.
Thus, in this case, when the Bishops speak out against the HHS Mandate they are well able to appeal to a principled stance of Catholicism that has not changed, no matter what the culture or the politics of abortion or the sexual revolution have demanded. Who, even among our worst opponents can really claim that the Catholic church has not been consistent on matters of abortion and contraception? And while our culture has shifted its views and allegiances in these matters, the Church has not. Our views are principled and consistent in this regard. Call us conservative today, but tomorrow when another issue like immigration comes up, we who strive to be simply Catholic, will not purely line up with the conservative or Republican party line. Again, our source must be, and is, a consistent reference to the biblical message and the social teachings of the Church that insists, in this case, that the foreigner among us must be treated with respect and justice. And while border security is essential, so is generosity and justice for those who, like our own ancestors, seek opportunity in this land. Not conservative enough? Perhaps not, but Catholic and biblical.
Frankly the Catholic Church is just too big and diverse, our teachings too ancient, biblical and Catholic to fit into a narrow little label like liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Long after the West as we know it may be gone (pray not), and surely long after political positions have drifted and morphed into other combinations, the Church will still be here articulating and trying to live to the best of her ability the Gospel as set forth by a higher and more lasting authority. We should do and be nothing less than being Simply Catholic.
Please note this is the second in the series of articles responding to some of the criticism of the Church’s opposition to the HHS Mandate. The first article was yesterday and can be read here: Why the Church Won’t Pay for Contraceptives
In this video, Cardinal George and the Chicago Archdiocese are making a similar point very about being Catholic First, creatively:
In discussing the Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate that will attempt to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization, I have discovered that many Catholics, while generally understanding why we object to paying for sterilization and abortifacients, are less than enthusiastic about our refusal to pay for contraceptives. This “lack of enthusiasm” for the Church’s position on Contraception, along with political irritation, makes many Catholics ambivalent or even hostile to the Bishop’s call that we oppose the HHS mandate.
Why we won’t pay for contraceptives – While the fundamental issue is this matter is Religious Freedom and the First Amendment, (which we have discussed here before and will again in the future), it may be worthwhile to focus for a moment on why we religiously oppose the use and funding of contraceptives. This discussion on contraception cannot be complete in a brief blog post, but setting forth the principled reasons of the Church teaching may be helpful.
In looking at the issue, we might begin by looking at the “big picture.” For while many people fail to see why contraception is harmful in a particular marriage, it is easier for them to begin to see the harm that contraceptives have caused in our wider culture. Looking at some of the harm may be of help in addressing the overall negative attitude that many, including most Catholics, bring to the Church teaching on Contraception.
For indeed, a generation has passed since the publication of the boldly pastoral and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitaewhich upheld the ancient ban on the use of artificial contraception. Perhaps no teaching of the Church causes the worldly to scoff more than our teaching against artificial contraception. The eyes of so many, Catholics among them, roll and the scoffing begins: Unrealistic! Out of touch! Uncompassionate! Silly! You’ve got to be kidding!
The Lord Jesus had an answer to those who ridiculed him in a similar way: Time will prove where wisdom lies. (Matt 11:16-18)
And to a large degree time has proven where wisdom lies. For some forty or more years after widespread acceptance of contraception many grave cultural consequences have set in, related to sexuality and mistaken notions of sex. Among the consequences are: widespread and open promiscuity, which has led to higher and higher levels of STDs, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, divorce, and to a decline in marriage rates. Recall that advocates of contraceptives, beginning in the 1950s and into the 1960s made many promises of the “benefits” of contraceptives.
The Promises of the Contraception Advocates:
Happier Marriages and a lower divorce rates since couples could have all the sex they wanted without “fear” of pregnancy.
Lower abortion rates since there would be far fewer “unwanted” children.
Greater dignity for women who will no longer be “bound” by their reproductive system.
More recently contraceptive advocates have touted the medical benefits of preventing STDs and AIDS especially by the use of condoms.
Paul VI in refuting these benefits made a few predictions of his own.
What were some of the concerns and predictions made by Pope Paul VI? (All of these are quotes from Humanae Vitae)
Consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity (Humanae Vitae (HV) # 17)
A general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. (HV # 17)
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (HV # 17)
Who will prevent public authorities from…impos[ing] their use on everyone. (HV # 17)
So, forty years later, who had the wisdom to see the true effects of Contraception, the world or the Church? Well lets consider some of the data:
The divorce rate did not decline. It skyrocketed. Divorce rates soared through the 1970s to to the 1990s to almost 50% of marriages failing. In recent years the divorce rate has dropped slightly but this may also be due to the fact that far fewer people get married in the first place, preferring to cohabitate and engage in a kind of serial polygamy drifting from relationship to relationship. The overall divorce rate despite its slight drop remains high, hovering in the low 40% range. Contraceptive advocates claim that divorce is a complicated matter. True enough. But they cannot have it both ways, claiming that contraception would be a “simple” fix to make marriages happier and then, when they are so horrifyingly wrong, claiming that divorce is “complicated.” Paul VI on the other hand predicted rough sailing for marriage in advent of contraception. Looks like the Pope was right.
Abortion rates did not decrease. They too skyrocketed. Within five years the pressure to have more abortion available led to its “legalization” in 1973. It has been well argued that, far from decreasing the abortion rate, contraception actually fueled it. Since contraception routinely fails, abortion became the “contraception of last recourse.” Further, just as the Pope predicted sexual immorality became widespread and this too led to higher rates of abortion. It is hard to compare promiscuity rates between periods since people “lie” a lot when asked about such things. But one would have to be very myopic not to notice the huge increase in open promiscuity, cohabitation, pornography and the like. All of this bad behavior, made more possible by contraceptives, also fuels abortion rates. Chalk up another one for the Pope and the Church.
The question of women’s dignity is hard to measure and different people have different measures. Women do have greater career choices. But is career or vocation the true source of one’s dignity? One’s dignity is surely more than their economic and utilitarian capacity. Sadly, motherhood has taken a real back seat in popular culture. And, as the Pope predicted women have been hypersexualized as well. (Yesterday’s Superbowl Ads featured large amounts of female nudity to sell even products like Doritos). The dignity of women as wives and mothers has been set aside in favor of the sexual pleasure they offer. As the Pope predicted many modern men, no longer bound by marriage for sexual satisfaction, use women and discard them on a regular basis. Men “get what they want” and it seems many women are willing to supply it rather freely. In this scenario men win. Women are often left with STDs, they are often left with children, and as they get older and “less attractive” they are often left alone. I am not sure this is dignity. But you decide who is right and if women really have won in the “new morality” that contraception helped usher in. I think the Pope wins this point as well.
As for preventing STDs and AIDS, again, big failure. STDs did not decrease and were not prevented. Infection rates skyrocketed through the 1970s and 1980s. AIDS which appeared on the scene later continues to show horribly high rates. Where is the promised deliverance? Contraceptives it seems, do not prevent anything. Rather they encourage the spread of these diseases by encouraging the bad behavior that causes them. Here too it looks like the Church was right and the world was wrong.
Add to this list the huge teenage pregnancy rates, the devastation of single parent families, broken hearts and even poverty. The link to poverty may seem obscure, but the bottom line is that single motherhood is the chief cause of poverty in this country. Contraception encourages promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy leads to single motherhood (absent fatherhood). Single motherhood leads to welfare and poverty. Currently in the inner city over 80% of homes are headed by single mothers. It is the single highest factor related to poverty.
Declining birth rates are also having terrible effects on contracepting cultures. Europe as we have known it is simply going out of existence. And while many debate endlessly over demographic data and how to interpret it, Europe’s future seems increasingly Muslim and the social network wherein the young care for the old has been largely gutted. I have written more on this HERE: Contraception is Cultural Suicide! Likewise here in the USA white and African American communities are below replacement level. Thankfully our immigrants are largely Christian and share our American vision. But for the Church the declining birthrates are now resulting in closing schools, parishes, declining vocations and the like. We cannot sustain what we have on a population that is no longer replacing itself. Immigration has insulated us from this to some extent, but low Mass attendance has eclipsed that growth and we are starting to shut down a lot of our operations.
Sexual Confusion – Contraception “decouples” sex from having children. It emphasizes sex as pleasure. for its own sake, and simply for the bonding of the adults involved. And while the Church does teach that marital sex does have a unitive dimension, it is not to be separated from its link to the procreative dimension. Having largely separated out the procreative dimension from sex, leads to a loss in the sacredness of sex. For if sex is just for pleasure, and not intrinsically related to having children, why should it be thought of as so sacred or serious. And why wait until marriage and maturity to start having it? And if sex is just about adults having pleasure and sharing intimate love, then many stop understanding why homosexual acts (which cannot be open to procreation) are flawed and intrinsically disordered.
Thus we have sown in the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.
And of course it is the children who ultimately pay. For, even though we have tried through a contraceptive mentality to say that sex has little to do with having children, the fact is it does. And our children are born into a cultural whirlwind that is largely caused by sexual confusion and irresponsibility. And contraceptives and the contraceptive mentality have been a huge factor in the unraveling of our sexual sensibilities, and the breakdown of our families. Bad behavior has been encouraged, and all the bad consequences that flow from it are flourishing.
Most people seem largely disinterested in this data. Hearts have become numb and minds have gone to sleep. I hope you are not among them, and that you might consider this information well and share it with others. Time HAS proved where wisdom lay. It’s time to admit the obvious
What I have tried to do here is to show some of the reasons the Church opposes the use and promotion of contraceptive practices. There are actually insights that bring forth this opposition. It is not just a backward bunch of clerics in the Vatican opposing sex. Rather it is an ancient wisdom that makes good sense.
When sex is decoupled from child-bearing many grave distortions are introduced into a culture. As the proper understanding of sex becomes unraveled, so does the family. And it is children who suffer most.
While the crisis of Western Culture has more than contraception for its cause, contraception has still played a huge role in setting off many whirlwinds that have swept away much that was good. It is no accident or mere coincidence that in the very 50 years that contraceptives have become widely available and used, that the family has gone into a kind of nuclear winter. The statistics make it clear that more than half of children (and far more in minority communities) will never know the two parent family that most of us who are over fifty experienced as normal and ubiquitous.
Of course another fundamental reason we oppose Contraception is rooted in the ancient practice, stretching back into biblical times and carried forward all through the Christian era. Until the 1940 Lambeth conference there never was a Christian Church or communion who approved of contraception. In that fateful year the Anglican Church of England gave the first tip of the hat to contraceptive practice, and slowly, the Protestant denominations all followed. But Catholics, Orthodox and Orthodox Jews have never changed. We continue to hold the ancient and wise insight that sex is intrinsically linked to child bearing, and that the link should never be broken and replaced by other intentions in isolation from that. To do so invites disaster, as we can plainly see.
It will be granted that living the Church teaching on Contraception is not easy. Yet some of the difficulty must also be traced to our seeming obsession with small families. We have argued on this blog at some length about economic realities and many have voiced strong opinions that more than 2 children is just not economically feasible. And yet others with larger families say they do fine. It would seem that a lot has to do with what we want and what our priorities are going to be. And while the arguments will surely continue, it is remains true to this author that the absolute necessity for only 1 or 2 children is not an unassailable fact.
In the end however, Catholics are encouraged to look beyond merely their own family and see what contraception has done to us. Life is bigger than merely what is hard for me, or what I like or don’t like, think or don’t think. Contraception has been a bitter pill that the West has swallowed.
While our fight against the HHS ruling is essentially about religious liberty, Catholics and others must understand that we do not seek to religious freedom merely for some arcane doctrine of no importance, that Catholics or others should say “What’s the big deal?” Rather, opposition to contraception is an essential component in the Catholic teaching on sexuality by which we stand against grave forces that wreak havoc on our culture. We cannot pay for something we see as sinful and destructive.
