Power, ideology, "superior slogans," and thinking in light of the Cross

Building on some remarks by Eugene Ionesco on ideology and the power of slogans I ran across a few days ago, which arose in the context of him discussing his dislike for those he termed demi-intellectuals, namely his observation that such people are quick to "adopt slogans and are imprisoned by power." Hence, "they are people who don't really think," but who only think they think, when all they do is adopt the slogans of whatever power is ascendant. "They succumb to superior slogans," he said.

One person of Ionesco's time who truly and deeply thought and was never taken by slogan, except to resist them, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote in his Ethics:

In a world where success is the measure and justification of all things the figure of Him who was sentenced and crucified remains a stranger and is at best the object of pity. The world will allow itself to be subdued only by success. It is not ideas or opinions which decide, but deeds. Success alone justifies wrongs done... With a frankness and off-handedness which no other earthly power could permit itself, history appeals in its own cause to the dictum that the end justifies the means... The figure of the Crucified invalidates all thought which takes success for its standard (extract from Mataxes book on Bonhoeffer, pg 363)

Making political judgments: where truth confronts ideology

Without a doubt the U.S. is currently experiencing a time of great political tension caused by the clashing, not of political philosophies (we abandoned those along ago), but of competing ideologies. It is all too easy for Christians to get sucked in on one side or the other. Nothing is more indicative of an ideology, which at the practical and personal level means approaching things in a preconceived manner, than sloganeering or repeating memes that have the effect of reinforcing preconceptions borne of a given ideology.

Today on Facebook I saw this meme posted by a quite a few people. Because I was bothered by this, I let it serve as a provocation:

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither

The point, assuming I understand it correctly, is that by seeking to de-fund Planned Parenthood, NPR, and PBS, while continuing to allow oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and rewarding bad behavior on the part of major financial institutions, members of a certain party in Congress are perceived as intentionally refusing to do the morally correct thing across-the-board. What could be more outrageous than that?!

Such a dense compilation of issues doesn’t bear up under examination. The best way to describe it is as an incoherent rant, which, if we’re honest, most of us go off on from time-to-time. On my view, what makes it worthy of an extended commentary is that I believe that many who posted it think that it makes some over-arching point and provides us with moral guidance on how to resolve our current political stand-off.

The first indication that this is ideology at work is that it lumps things together that need to be considered separately. It also seeks to establish moral equivalence between matters that have no moral equivalency whatsoever. This is also a sign of ideology, the kind that is engaged under the guise of righteous indignation. I mean, are defunding public broadcasting and PP morally equivalent?

I look at everything mentioned in the meme and think: I oppose the attempt in Wisconsin to deprive state employees of their ability to collectively bargain, which, as a Catholic, I take to be a right, which is not to say I think unions always act in the best interests of their members, or the common good. I am against de-funding public broadcasting. I favor de-funding PP. Despite its success, I remain opposed to TARP, precisely because it rewarded bad behavior and also provided cover for many people who are guilty of serious crimes that impacted the lives of millions, not only insuring they will never be brought to justice for their misdeeds, but that they will walk away with more money than ever! I have registered my discontent about this on a regular basis in posts going back more than two years. Nonetheless, I must begrudgingly admit that the TARP money has been repaid and that taxpayers actually made some money off these funds. There still remain deep, systemic problems with our financial system, such as it is.

Another prevalent argument against de-funding public broadcasting and PP is that they amount to a small drop in an inkwell full of red ink. Indeed, they do. There are two reasonable answers to this argument. The first and perhaps the most obvious is that every bit of cost-cutting adds up. Still, the argument that those proposing to eliminate government funding for these organizations are thereby making a claim to balance the budget misses their point, namely that these entities have no value, are of negative value, or, pertaining especially to public broadcasting, they go beyond the scope of what government should do. It bears noting (skipping back to the issue of moral equivalence) that the issue of whether or not to de-fund public broadcasting is very much an issue of prudential judgment, as is whether one supports or laments TARP.

To demonstrate that ideological moves are not the sole property of one viewpoint, I’ll use Sen. Kyle, a Republican from Arizona, as an example. Over the past few days the senator has rightly been taken to task for saying on the Senate floor, while arguing for the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, that 90% of what they do is perform abortions. Not only was Kyle’s statement incorrect, it turned out to be a woeful exaggeration. Apparently performing abortions amounts to only about 3% of the services provided by this nationwide non-profit group that receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from our federal government via grants and contracts. In a similar vein, Rep. Michelle Bachmann called Planned Parenthood "the LensCrafters of Big Abortion."

Let’s approach the question from a different angle, without exaggeration or making analogies, which are always problematic, or, as in Bachmann’s case, intentionally incendiary: without a doubt PP is not only the largest abortion provider in the U.S., but throughout the world. Thanks to an executive order signed by Pres. Obama on 22 January 2009, just days after taking office and on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade no less, reversing the so-called Mexico City policy, implemented by Pres. Reagan and reinstated by the last Pres. Bush, Planned Parenthood and other NGOs now use your tax dollars to provide abortions overseas. According to its most recent annual report, in 2008-2009 Planned Parenthood received some $363 million in federal funding. During this period the organization performed 324,008 abortions in U.S. alone, setting a new record for the number of abortions it performed in a year. In fairness, they provided 9,433 adoption referrals, which is not quite 3% of the number babies it aborted. According to one commentator, there seems to be a correlation between the steady rise in federal funding for PP and the number of abortions they perform.

I think it always bears noting that if we put our faith in Christ into political action, which are encouraged to do if in no other way than when we vote, we look pretty incoherent to those whose views are shaped by secular forces. According to the prevailing political labels, when it comes to marriage, family, and life issues we are seen as very "conservative", with the exception of opposing the death penalty. When it comes to labor matters, immigration, and many issues of social welfare we come across as considerably more "liberal". In a very broad statement about the on-going budget debate, which presents the occasion for all these issues to come to the fore, thus tempting us to lump everything together, Bishop Hubbard of Albany, NY and Bishop Blair of Stockton, CA, who chair the International Justice and Peace and Domestic Justice and Human Development committees respectively, gave a threefold criteria for judging budgetary decisions in a way that challenges us to move beyond ideology:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. 2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects 'the least of these' (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times

Let's keep in mind that Jesus was no more a liberal democrat than He was a conservative Republican.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

"But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game"

"I watched with glee/while your kings and queens/fought for ten decades/for the gods they made"

Pope Benedict has observed and publicly stated more than once that violence committed in the name of God or religion is false. In the second volume of his life of our Lord he states, "Violence does not build up the kingdom of God. On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be. It serves not humanity, but inhumanity."

Even though today is Friday, is not a day of either fasting or abstinence because today we observe the Solemnity of the Annunciation. So, say a Memoraré and have a cheeseburger. Let's remember that by His cross and resurrection, Christ broke the cycle of violence showed the great lie behind the myth of retributive violence. This is why we should all rejoice that just before Lent Pat Quinn, the governor of Illinois, abolished the death penalty in that state.

Magnificat anima mea Dominum

Knowledge and ignorance: Northwestern & BYU

Over the nearly five year history of Καθολικός διάκονος I have only had one guest post, that is, until today. Last week my good friend Dan Szynal suggested a topic for my blog. So, I suggested he write something and I would post it. He did.

After a long period of formation, Dan was recently commissioned as lay ecclesial minister for his diocese in Illinois. With no further adieu, below is the fruit of his diligent effort:

_______________________________________________________________________

St. Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, gives some very pastoral teaching when he tells them, "'Everything is lawful,' but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is lawful,' but not everything builds up" (1 Cor. 10:23).

No truer words could be spoken this week in light of two controversies that have been reported in the media this at two separate college universities. These two stories have some strange similarities, and yet travel along polar opposite lines. That these two stories stand in marked contrast to each other points to the great divide in this country about worldview. However, I think that both point to something that hasn’t been covered in the media blitz.

The first case comes from Northwestern University; a well known school in the northern suburbs of Chicago. Earlier this week, a demonstration was conducted in a course on human sexuality that is offered for academic credit. This demonstration, which was conducted after the class had ended, involved a volunteer woman who had a sexual act performed on her, while nude in front of the class, by a "sex toy". The reason given for this demonstration was that the accompanying lecture in course discussed different sexual experiences and offered this knowledge to the students so that they could have a more whole understanding of human sexuality. The subsequent demonstration was described during class, and the students were given the option to stay or leave afterward as it was characterized as information that would not be tested on. The controversy was reported all over the local Chicago land media with the professor as well as the volunteer giving statements that they felt this was a positive experience for everyone to give them the knowledge to make informed decisions about their own sexuality.

The second case comes from Brigham Young University in which star forward Brandon Davies, has been suspended for violating the school’s honor code of living a chaste and virtuous life. The countrywide publicity that has come from this did not stem from the fact that a young unmarried man was having sexual relations with his girlfriend, but instead came from the suspension from BYU as it chose to enforce its honor code that students are asked to affirm.

There are several angles to this story; the way in which the media covered both stories; a comparison of sexual attitudes in America, the public reaction and any consequences to each University from the publicity (whether good or bad). However, I think that St. Paul hints at something that applies to these stories here. In a way, a common thread to both of these stories revolves around the question of "knowledge"?

We live in a time and a society that respects the value of knowledge and the free exchange of ideas. I don’t think that anyone would deny that one of the core freedoms of our country is contained in that ideal. However, St. Paul, in a certain way, gives some guidance to the beneficial limits of knowledge to those who follow Jesus Christ.

There are two types of knowledge, an intellectual knowledge which seeks to know and understand facts and truths. There is another kind of knowledge which is experiential, a knowledge of the heart, if you will. It is a knowledge that seeks to integrate the experience into part of whom we are.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a course on human sexuality. There is nothing wrong with academic pursuits that seek to gain knowledge so that a person can learn to think critically, solve problems, and make judgments about different situations. This is, after all, the goal of higher education.

Then there is experiential knowledge. Is all experiential knowledge beneficial? Does it build up the body? Does it lend to make a person whole? Does the integration of that experiential knowledge benefit the person, or can it be destructive?

Such is the kinds of questions that revolve around the acts of Brandon Davies and the demonstration at Northwestern University.

I think that Archbishop Fulton Sheen, of blessed memory, speaks directly to this when he says,

“The words of Jesus and Mary suggest there is value in not knowing (evil)... The great fallacy of modern education is the assumption that the reason that there is evil in the world is because there is ignorance, and that if we pour more facts into the minds of the young, that we will make them better… How often the disillusioned say, ‘I wish I had never tasted liquor’. Think not that in order to know life, you must experience evil” (1)

Forgetting, for a moment, whether or not society, in general, would characterize the Northwestern or BYU incidents as "evil", the question becomes, how do these experiences of knowledge help integrate the person into the wholeness of the person that God has created us to become? How will the experiences of knowledge affect the students at Northwestern in their future relationships? Will the tacit approval of alternative forms of sexual expression lead them to a fuller integration of their sexuality as an icon of the inner life of the Trinity as a mutual giving and receiving of love and life that is free, total, faithful, and fruitful? Will this demonstration lead them to being able to integrate a healthy and wholesome sexuality who’s end is not self gratification, but a true giving of self and deep intimate communion with an other to whom

How will Brandon Davies move forward from the consequences of the actions that led to his suspension? There is no doubt that his conscience, which led him to act in telling the school of his actions, will also guide him to reflect on his experience, and will hopefully lead to a teaching moment that will lead him closer to God, which always makes one more whole, more human. Good can always come from our wrong actions. That is the mystery of grace.

Never should knowledge be banned. However, there can also be wisdom in “not knowing”. There were two people who never knew sin; Our Lord, and Our Blessed Mother. Let us pray that we may truly possess the ignorance of sin so that we may be filled instead with the knowledge of God’s love.

(1) Seven Words of Jesus and Mary, Fulton J Sheen, Ligouri/Triumph, 2001, pgs 14-18

Kermit Gosnell and the Gospel of Life, or taking an unpopular stand

Since it's unexpectedly turned into social justice week here at Καθολικός διάκονος, I thought I would post something today on an issue that presents a real conundrum for a lot of Catholics, namely the case of the abortion practitioner, Kermit Gosnell. I would suggest that a necessary prologomena to this post is my post from last Saturday, the title of which is taken from Romans 12:17, "Repay no one evil for evil." To summarize, if we are truly followers of Jesus Christ, we must forgive, but forgiveness is not only a process, in many cases it is only made possible by the grace of God, that vengeance is the Lord's, as St. Paul tells us, and that mercy does not cancel out justice, even in the kingdom of God, as Pope Benedict wrote about with great insight in his encyclical letter Spe Salvi.

What Kermit Gosnell stands accused of is atrocious. I have no problem calling it evil. Elizabeth Scalia, who blogs as The Anchoress has a post that details Gosnell's alleged doings, which constitute a whole lot more than being responsible for the death of a woman for whom he performed an abortion and brutally killing babies who survived his botched abortion attempts. Specifically, as The Anchoress details, "Prosecutors in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania announced today they will seek the death penalty for abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell, who faces charge[s] related to killing a woman in a botched abortion and killing babies infanticides." As a result of being charged with first-degree murder, prosecutors let Gosnell's attorney know "that they will seek death by lethal injection if a jury finds Gosnell guilty" on this charge. Additionally, "Gosnell faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar from a botched abortion Gosnell performed. Mongar died November 20, 2009, after overdosing on anesthetics prescribed by the doctor." Gosnell stands accused of a lot more than these crimes. Elizabeth provides a link to the Grand Jury report, which I provide here for the sake of ease with a warning that the contents are horrifying.

Kermit Gosnell

This is clearly a case when we realize that it’s not easy to take an unpopular stand, even when it’s right, but as followers of Jesus, even in a case this gruesome, we must oppose the death penalty. In his encylical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II saw rising opposition to the death penalty as great sign of hope, writing, "Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion... evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of 'legitimate defence' on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform" (par. 27).

Now, it is inadvisable to write about the death penalty without addressing the issue of moral equivalence. Probably the greatest consternation that arises as a result of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin's seamless garment of life proposal is that it seems (only because many don't take the time familiarize themselves with what Bernardin actually proposed) to establish in the minds of many Catholics a moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty. Of course, there is no moral equivalence between the taking of an innocent, helpless human life and that of a person who is guilty of murder, or, as with Gosnell, multiple murders. In this country, insuring that the person facing the death penalty is actually guilty of the crime he is accused of, or often convicted of, is very problematic, to say the least, but that is a justice issue for another day.

This certainly becomes an issue at election time, when we routinely face a choice between candidates who oppose abortion, but who support the death penalty and vice-versa. Well, because they are not morally equivalent, if your decision comes down solely to this issue, which it usually does not, proportional reasoning indicates you go with the candidate who opposes abortion and supports the death penalty. This is just one case study in how difficult it is to bring our faith to bear when exercising our rights as citizens in a representative democracy, which requires us to use proportional reasoning.

The "clinic" where Gosnell provided "Family Planning" services

Also in Evangelium Vitae, JPII states,

"The problem [of the death penalty] must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is 'to redress the disorder caused by the offence'. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated."

"Therefore, he continues, 'It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent'.

"Finally, In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person'" (par. 56; CCC par. 2266-2267).

I would apologize for posting such long extracts of papal teaching, except that when it comes to these so-called "hot button" issues that tend to stir up a lot of emotion, it is important for both of my readers to know that I am not merely offering my own opinion. It is also good to be reminded, in this case as well as the one raised by recent efforts to eliminate or severely limit the right of workers to collectively bargain, that we shouldn't only appeal to church teaching when it suits our personal politics, that is, fits with our preconceptions. How does this challenge us to follow Christ with ever more fidelity? More importantly, we must ask ourselves how advocating for Gosnell's death affects our witness to the inherent dignity of all human life, created in the imago dei, which even the most heinous sins cannot completely efface; the radicality necessitated by the Gospel about which I posted last Saturday.

A friend reminded me today of something Don Giussani said that synthesizes and summarizes this all very well: "The Mystery as mercy remains the last word even on all the awful possibilities of history."

"When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing..."

"... We all know that crap is king/Give us dirty laundry."

After these weeks of world and national upheaval, when news organizations either report on themselves, remain content to read Charlie Sheen's Twitter feed, or take sides and skew the news all the while trying to convince us they are "fair and balanced," when very few in the media, excepting a few, like Matt Taibbi, who once again reports in Rolling Stone on the dangerous travesty that is Wall Street, even seem to care, or to know enough to let us know what is happening, I have no choice but to post the Eagles' Dirty Laundry as our Friday traditio. Well, I do have a choice and I choose Dirty Laundry.

Did you know that average pension for a retired public sector employee in Wisconsin is $24,500 a year? Did you also know that 15% of what that state spends on pensions goes for fees to Wall Street firms?

Here are a few paragraphs from Taibbi's most recent RS piece, which I urge you to read in its entirety:

"Last year, the government deported 393,000 people, at a cost of $5 billion. Since 2007, felony immigration prosecutions along the Mexican border have surged 77 percent; nonfelony prosecutions by 259 percent. In Ohio last month, a single mother was caught lying about where she lived to put her kids into a better school district; the judge in the case tried to sentence her to 10 days in jail for fraud, declaring that letting her go free would 'demean the seriousness' of the offenses.

"So there you have it. Illegal immigrants: 393,000. Lying moms: one. Bankers: zero. The math makes sense only because the politics are so obvious. You want to win elections, you bang on the jailable class. You build prisons and fill them with people for selling dime bags and stealing CD players. But for stealing a billion dollars? For fraud that puts a million people into foreclosure? Pass. It's not a crime. Prison is too harsh. Get them to say they're sorry, and move on. Oh, wait — let's not even make them say they're sorry. That's too mean; let's just give them a piece of paper with a government stamp on it, officially clearing them of the need to apologize, and make them pay a fine instead. But don't make them pay it out of their own pockets, and don't ask them to give back the money they stole. In fact, let them profit from their collective crimes, to the tune of a record $135 billion in pay and benefits last year. What's next? Taxpayer-funded massages for every Wall Street executive guilty of fraud?"

Scripture is not silent on these matters. Look at what the prophet Amos, a non-institutional figure, like Cesar Chavez and Dorothy Day in our time, had to say to the rich cheaters of ancient Israel:

"Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, 'When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the chaff of the wheat?'

Former CEO of Lehman Bros., Dick Fuld, one of many responsible for the melt-down

"The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: 'Surely I will never forget any of their deeds. Shall not the land tremble on this account, and everyone mourn who dwells in it, and all of it rise like the Nile, and be tossed about and sink again, like the Nile of Egypt?

"'And on that day,' declares the Lord God, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on every waist and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day'" (Amos 8:4-10).

I am convinced that when people today ask "Where are the saints?", they don't see them because they're looking for a warm little institutional figure, somebody who is harmless, just the kind of person that Dorothy Day was worried about being dismissed as.

Archbishop Dolan on telling the truth to yourself and to others

Below is a post from Archbishop Timothy Dolan's blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age. I am putting it up in its entirety because, as he usually does, Archbishop Dolan hits the nail on the head, that is, he simply tells the truth. Let us approach Lent, which is a mere week away, in this same manner:

_______________________________________________________________________

I’ve known for a long time that I should lose some weight. So, last week, I visited my doctor, and he showed me a gross, disgusting, dripping ball of yellow wax. “This,” he said to me, “is what ten pounds of fat looks like. This is what you’re carrying around in your body.” Was it upsetting? Unnerving? Sobering? You bet it was. It was also true, and it was effective, as it strengthened my resolve to get my weight under control.

Being confronted by the truth can often be unpleasant. That’s why those who fight so hard to eradicate world hunger will show us what hunger does, with a picture of a starving child, covered with flies and sores. Does it disturb us to face that truth, an image we’d rather not see or think about? It should, even as it spurs us to action.

It’s the same with smoking. I’m sure you’ve seen those television commercials that graphically portray the effects of smoking. It’s unpleasant to look at open heart surgery, or a pair of diseased lungs, or to see a person who has lost fingers, toes, or the esophagus, all due to smoking. The ads are nauseating, even hideous, to see. But the New York State Department of Health, among many others, sponsors these kinds of ads because they know that they can help to save lives.

Another ad has been generating some fierce reactions. Here in New York, a billboard was recently displayed, that simply stated “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” This message was accompanied by a photograph of a young, African-American girl.

Is that message unpleasant? Is it upsetting? Does it get our attention?

Yes!

Because the message is somberly true. The City of New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently released its vital statistics from a year ago which showed that 59.8% of African-American pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion. That’s even higher than the chilling city-wide average of 41% of pregnancies ending in abortion. (I joined other community leaders from a diversity of religious and ethnic backgrounds at a press conference sponsored by the Chiaroscuro Foundation about this a few weeks ago.)

So why has the billboard suddenly been taken down? What was it that moved many of our elected officials to condemn this ad and call for the gag order. Are they claiming that free speech is a right enjoyed only by those who favor abortion or their pet causes? Do they believe that unpleasant and disturbing truths should not be spoken? Or are they afraid that when people are finally confronted with the reality of the horror of abortion, and with the toll that it is taking in our city, particularly in our African-American community, that they will be moved to defend innocent, unborn, human life?

Perhaps I’m more saddened by this intolerance right now because on Monday I will be celebrating the funeral mass for Doctor Bernard Nathanson, that giant of the pro-life movement, who died earlier this week. If you don’t know Dr. Nathanson’s story, you should. At one time, he fought hard to promote and expand abortion on demand in this state and in our country. He was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League. He ran what he called the “largest abortion clinic in the Western world,” and bragged about personally performing thousands of abortions. But, when Dr. Nathanson was confronted with the undeniable truth, when he could see the unborn baby in the womb through the use of ultrasound technology, he abandoned his support for abortion and became a crusader for the protection of the life of the baby in the womb.

His courage and bravery should be an inspiration to us, especially when we have to face unpleasant and sobering truths.

"Repay no one evil for evil"

Having posted last night about Cardinal George's desire to make hearing confessions an important part of his ministry after his retirement from being the archbishop of Chicago, this morning I encountered something via Quaerere Deum on the absolute necessity to forgive. The brief piece, which originated on Desert Wisdom, is about a Russian monk, Elder Sampson Sievers, who passed back in 1979. Like Dostoevsky's remarkable Elder Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov, Elder Sampson was a spiritual father to many. I guess the best equivalent in the West would be a spiritual director, often conceived of, from the Celtic tradition, as a soul-friend. However, the relationship between a person and her/his spiritual father is a different, deeper kind of relationship. It doesn't take on the kind of pragmatic "let's get down to business" character that seems to comprise a lot of what passes for spiritual direction in the efficient West.

The post on Desert Wisdom says that Elder Sampson "was a man well-equipped to speak on the subject of forgiveness. As a young novice monk, he was arrested by the Communist authorities, shot in a mass execution, and thrown into a common grave. By Divine Providence he survived the shooting, and was pulled out of the grave still breathing by his brother monks and nursed back to health. Later he was arrested again and spent nearly twenty years in Communist concentration camps. But he never held onto bitterness and resentment: He completely forgave both his executioners and his torturers. In his later years, when he was serving as a spiritual father to many people, he was especially tough when his spiritual children refused to forgive someone, even for some petty annoyance. He said: 'I’ve always concluded: this means that they still have not gotten the point, that the whole secret, that all the salt of Christianity lies in this: to forgive, to excuse, to justify, not to know, not to remember.'"

I find this both beautiful and troubling. The reason I find it troubling is the exhortation not to remember evil and even to justify evil. I see why I should not dwell on on evil. I even see that to forgive means, to some extent, to excuse evil, but do I really have to both forget and justify evil? Given his experience, Elder Sampson's teaching cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. There was a conversation I participated in last week about the absolute need for one who follows Christ to forgive as Jesus taught us in last Sunday's Gospel, and He demonstrated by praying for those who killed Him even as the were nailing Him to the Cross: "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father" in the recognition that God "makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust" (Matt.5:43-56).

It is undeniable that we are to pray for our enemies and love those who persecute us. This falls into the category of easy to say, difficult to live. However, what about really egregious things? In no way do we realize that, unlike our blessed the Lord, we are not yet perfect as our Father heaven is perfect than when it comes to the need to forgive. As Elder Sampson directed, forgiving requires at least excusing evil, if not justifying it or forgetting it. Forgiveness, certainly for truly evil acts deliberately committed, as well as very often for trifling things, must be a choice, but it requires grace, too. I believe that this grace takes the form of remembering how much we need God's mercy, Jesus Christ (i.e., "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"). Nonetheless, we sometimes first have to pray for the grace to pray for another, to truly desire the best for him/her. For many who have been gravely harmed by another this is a process, a two steps forward and one step back proposition (or even one step forward and two steps back, depending on the day). The need to forgive, to be merciful because God has given us mercy, always, inevitably, and necessarily brings up the issue of justice.

I his encyclical Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict reflects deeply on justice and mercy. I think he lays things out more clearly than does Elder Sampson: mercy cannot cancel out the demands of justice:

"To protest against God in the name of justice is not helpful. A world without God is a world without hope (cf. Eph 2:12). Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that he does so. The image of the Last Judgement is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love. God is justice and creates justice. This is our consolation and our hope. And in his justice there is also grace. This we know by turning our gaze to the crucified and risen Christ. Both these things—justice and grace—must be seen in their correct inner relationship. Grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. It is not a sponge which wipes everything away, so that whatever someone has done on earth ends up being of equal value. Dostoevsky, for example, was right to protest against this kind of Heaven and this kind of grace in his novel The Brothers Karamazov. Evildoers, in the end, do not sit at table at the eternal banquet beside their victims without distinction, as though nothing had happened" (par. 44).

We cannot neglect weighty matters, that is, our stance towards thos who deliberately commit truly evil acts. Take as an example our opposition as Catholics to the death penalty: I can’t fail to recognize the point-of-view of someone who has had a spouse, a parent, a sibling, a child, a near and dear friend who was brutally murdered and accept their very human response to such an occurrence, which often, at least initially, sees justice as an eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth. We must help them see that result of such a stance, particularly in the face of evil, only has the effect, as Tevye, from Fiddler on the Roof, sagely observed, of leaving everyone blind and toothless.

In recently counseling someone who is dealing with the rape and murder of someone close to him, he told me about how a close friend had mocked his opposition to the death penalty and his faith by saying to him about the murderer: "I guess you can look forward to shaking hands with that bastard in heaven." The scandal of Christianity is that, while this is not a certainty, it is a possibility. Further, it is a possibility we are called to help bring about. This is how we help accomplish God's purpose, assisting in the divine work of bringing life from death. It is hard work, indeed!

In light of these provocations, as a Christians, let us recognize how far our hearts from are from where they need to be, from where we want them to be (if we are serious about being Jesus' disciples). In order to do so, we have to be reassured of what the Holy Father teaches us; with God there is justice, even for those who ultimately recognize their need for divine mercy. This is no different from what St. Paul wrote a long time ago:

"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' To the contrary, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:17-19- ESV).

Feast of the Holy Innocents, martyrs

Over the course of Advent the Holy Father and our bishops asked us to pray for, work toward, and raise awareness of the dignity of all human life, even nascent human life, that is, human life at its earliest stages when, instead of seeing a nascent human person, many regard the life in its earliest stages as a cluster of cells. There are three arenas when this viewpoint comes into play: early term chemical abortions of the kind enacted when the RU-486 pill is used, which is also how birth control pills often work, when seeking to use to fetal stem cells "harvested" from aborted children, and, finally, but of no less concern, in in vitro fertilization, a procedure that requires quite a number of fertilized eggs to result in a single pregnancy, which, while well-intentioned, is not a morally acceptable means to the very good end of having a child. For those in the heart-breaking situation of being married and unable to have children and who want to, don't hesitate to contact your pastor about how you might proceed. After all, we're here to help each other.

Massacre of the Innocents, Fra Angelico, c.1450

Of course, there remains the horrible scourge of abortion. I write about all of this because today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, who were, even before St. Stephen, proto-martyrs. Today we remember those innocent children slaughtered by Herod in his dastardly attempt to kill the true King of the Jews, whom he feared as a rival to his power. As Peter Hitchens wrote just before the Nativity of the Lord about Holy Innocents' Day: "I hope as many of you as possible will recall with sorrow the continuing massacre of innocent unborn babies, our society’s greatest and deepest shame, and the one of which it most hates to be reminded." On this feast, I don't mind doing a little reminding.

St. Matthew cites the prophet Jeremiah in his lament for the Holy Innocents: "A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more" (Matt. 2:18). As Pope John Paul II never tired of reminding us, without the right to life all of our other rights are pretty meaningless. So, dear friends, choose life, like our Blessed Mother, Mary, say "Yes," even when there are difficulties involved. Rather than limit yourself to engaging in activism, get involved with your local Crisis Pregnancy Center, or contact the Family Life Office in your diocese to find out how you can help, even if only as a benefactor. This makes it easier for others to say "Yes," especially those in distress.

UPDATE: Over Il Sussidiario there is an article I originally wrote for Cahiers Péguy, where I have begun posting from time-to-time, on the repeal of DADT; a delicate subject for some.

Veni adoramus

Pope Benedict XVI on the need to "fight against the banalization of [human] sexuality

Below is a note issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order make clear what Pope Benedict was indicating in the answer he gave to a question asked by Peter Seewald that prompted such great controversy. Suffice it to say that, like the pope donning the camauro, a medieval hat traditionally worn by popes, back in the winter of 2005, his statement was subject to over-interpretation by many on both sides of the issue. Seemingly the only competent commentator to fully, or even partially, grasp what the Holy Father was trying to say was philosopher Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, as the latest post by Sandro Magister over on Chiesa further indicates.

What follows below is the CDF clarification:

"Following the publication of the interview-book Light of the World by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today.

"Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern – as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope – which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119) – do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.

"As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, when he wrote that 'also to be excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.' The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought. On this issue the Pope proposes instead – and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. Light of the World, p. 147) – humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation.

"On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: 'Flee from fornication' (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

"In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute 'the real or moral solution' to the problem of AIDS and also that 'the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality' in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom 'with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.' This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is 'not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.'

"Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the 'lesser evil'. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

"In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. In this regard it is also important to condemn any behaviour which cheapens sexuality because, as the Pope says, such behaviour is the reason why so many people no longer see in sexuality an expression of their love: 'This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being' (Light of the World, p. 119)."

See also a post from September- censoring the scope of the desire.

Maranatha

Faith and morals; the Church and the world

In order to bring my posting about the great condom conflagration of 2010 to a close (I anticipate one more post mid-week next on the pastoral application of what I am suggesting), I want to point out that arguing over the morality of using condoms to reduce the risk of HIV infection, especially whether it is moral for a married couple to do so in light of what Pope Benedict said to Peter Seewald about the possibility of permitting such use by those engaging in extra-marital or pre-marital relations, it is necessary to point out two things:

1) In order to justify the use of condoms to reduce the risk of HIV infection between people engaging in pre- or extra-marital relations one employs the moral argument of the lesser of two evils. This argument goes something like this- Engaging in such relations is already gravely sinful and so using a condom to prevent the risk of contracting or infecting someone else with a STD is the lesser of the two evils. When seeking to justify such use within marriage, one is forced to employ a variant of the principle of double effect. As I previously noted, in order to apply the principle of double effect, which allows you to do something that has a double effect, something that can achieve at the same time a good and a bad effect, it is not enough to merely intend the good effect, the bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved. By my reckoning, using a condom prevents the transmission of HIV precisely through the bad effect (i.e., contraceptive effect) of depriving that act of its procreative meaning.

2) Additionally, it is necssary to respond to the argument made, even by several prominent Catholic commentators, that permitting the use of condoms in one case and not the other is unfair to married couples and in fact favors people who engage in sex outside of marriage. In no do the Holy Father's remarks indicate a retreat from the gravely sinful nature of sex outside of marriage. He bestows no moral legitimacy on such actions, but insists on their intrinsic and objective wrongness, if you will. Such activity remains gravely sinful, or at least constitutes a sin with grave matter, whereas sex within marriage is not sinful, especially when it is not distorted by the use of contraceptives and retains both its unitive and procreative meanings. So, to argue such a point is to reveal how very secular and even hedonistic our view of human sexuality has become, even the view of many Christians.

In a post back in October I referred to an article by Stuart Reid in the U.K.'s Catholic Herald in which he wrote about Mel Gibson's Catholicism, defending it even in the face of Mel's public failures and against longstanding accusations that Mel shares his father's sedevacantist views. Reid writes that as far as he knows Gibson "has never questioned, far less rejected, any part of Catholic teaching." He notes that such cannot be said of many Catholics, including many priests. Reid uses the example of the mass rejection of Catholics in what he calls "the comfortable West" of the Church's teaching as set forth most recently and comprehensively by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and bolstered by Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, noting that the vast majority of Catholics not only ignore this teaching- "the way we all ignore moral teaching from time to time," which active ignoring we call sin, but "they believe the Church is in error." This grave situation gives rise to a certain moral relativity even among Catholics.

At the root of this view is the increasingly unreasonable way we approach sex, seeing it exclusively as a form of recreation and not at all, or only minimally about procreation. According to this way of seeing sex, pregnancy is what occurs when something goes wrong, when there has a been a contraceptive failure. In a speech he delivered in May 2008 to a conference at the Pontifical Lateran University to mark the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the Holy Father warned that "[i]f the practice of sexuality becomes a drug that seeks to enslave one's partner to one's own desires and interests, without respecting the cycle of the beloved, then what must be defended is no longer solely the true concept of love but in the first place the dignity of the person. As believers, we could never let the domination of technology invalidate the quality of love and the sacredness of life."

He echoes his words from that speech in his interview with Seewald by pointing out that if we concentrate exclusively on condoms as the primary way to stem the spread of HIV then we risk trivializing human sexuality "and this trivialization represents precisely the dangerous reason why so many people no longer see sexuality as an expression of their love, but only as a sort of drug, which one administers on one's own."

This is the 1,700th post on Καθολικός διάκονος.

Maranatha

Faith and reason; morals and ethics

Sandro Magister, author of Chiesa and one of the foremost Vaticanisti, today posted a comprehensive guide to the great condom conflagration of 2010 sparked by the Holy Father’s answer to a question posed to him by journalist Peter Seewald for a book-length interview, published under the title The Light of the Word: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Time. I think Magister quite right when he writes that by addressing this disputed and controversial question “Benedict XVI has brought this dispute into the sunlight, encouraging everyone to take part in it.” I weighed in previously on this question, taking what amounts to what I would call a compassionate traditional view by invoking a version of the lesser of two evils argument, which amounted to writing that if you are already engaging in gravely immoral sexual behavior, then using a condom both to protect yourself and others does not add to the gravity of your sinful behavior.

The argument I used does not extend to legitimizing the use of condoms within marriage. However, it is the clear teaching of the Church, as Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life writes in a letter to Magister, that even "[t]he prophylactic use of condoms within marriage is objectively a grave sin against the marriage covenant." He bases his position on Humanae Vitae §12, which reiterates the "unbreakable connection" between the unitive and the procreative meanings of the marital act. In short, sexual intercourse within marriage "is not truly unitive if the behaviour engaged in is not of the generative/procreative type."

I stand by my argument, despite the argument Magister and several others make in this on-going controversy that "[i]f this loving understanding applies to a sinner, it could apply all the more to the classic case encountered in Africa and elsewhere by pastors and missionaries: that of two spouses, one of whom is sick with AIDS and uses a condom to avoid endangering the life of the other." A position he notes that, with certain variations, has been taught by "[n]umerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures," but remains something "we have not heard… from the mouth of the Pope, even… in a[n] informal and not magisterial form."

Instead of relying on lesser of two evils arguments, those who would extend condom use to marital relations in cases in which one partner is HIV-positive seek to apply what is known as the principle of double effect. My objection to applying this principle to these cases is that legitimate application of this principle stipulates that the bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved. My formal objection is articulated well by Gormally in the citation above. By breaking the connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of marital intercourse it contributes to what Pope Benedict goes on to call "the trivializing of sexuality," which results in the mass confusion, bordering on insanity, we currently experience with regard to human sexuality. Another concern about condom use, which I stated in my initial reply, is that while it significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection, it does not eliminate it, even when the prophylactic is used correctly (so-called prophylactic failure- using them improperly- obviously heightens the risk).

I have to admit that Gormally’s argument that intercourse between a male "john" and "a female prostitute is made into a sexual perversion by the use of a condom" takes me by surprise. In effect, he argues what is already a sin with grave matter is compounded by the use of a condom. While I agree to some extent with this assertion, I think given that the behavior, even prior to the introduction of a condom, is gravely sinful, it lacks significance. I was taken more aback by Gormally’s straightforward critique of the Holy Father, whom he criticizes for continuing "to function as a private theologian, even in areas in which he possesses no particular competence (moral theology)." He goes on to say that such functioning "is both irresponsible (because it creates confusion in the general populace about the exercise of the papal magisterium) and self-indulgent; self indulgent because it is a case of the Pope retreating to his 'comfort zone' of writing and talking while neglecting urgent tasks of governance."

It is important to contextualize what the Holy Father said: "Concentrating only on the condom means trivializing sexuality," he insists. He goes on to say that "the struggle against the trivialization of sexuality is also part of the great effort so that sexuality may be valued positively, and may exercise its positive effect on the human being in his totality." Further, Pope Benedict explicitly states that distributing and using condoms "is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality." To that end, I could not agree more with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer, a Swiss philosopher and priest of Opus Dei, who, in an article written for The Tablet regarding the Holy Father’s comment, said that "[t]he teaching of the Church is not about condoms or similar physical or chemical devices, but about marital love and the essentially marital meaning of human sexuality. It affirms that, if married people have a serious reason not to have children, they should modify their sexual behaviour by – at least periodic – abstinence from sexual acts. To avoid destroying both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexual acts and therefore the fullness of mutual self-giving, they must not prevent the sexual act from being fertile while carrying on having sex."

Maranatha

Faith, morals, and the necessary application of reason

In the recently released transcript of a lengthy interview with journalist Peter Seewald, published in book form under the English title Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, a book, as Sandro Magister points out, that is "so 'risky' [it] has no precedent for a successor of Peter," the Holy Father is asked questions on a broad variety of subjects. I am looking forward to reading the entire book, just as I read The Ratzinger Report, Salt of the Earth, and God and the World, the latter interview was conducted shortly before Ratzinger became pope and published shortly after his selection as the Successor of St. Peter. In addition to Light of the World, Seewald published the last two of the three previous books. He returned to practicing the faith after his first interview with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, published as Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium

Given the current state of most of the West some frank questions about sexuality were inevitable. It is all too predictable that in the current media environment the answer to one question about the use of condoms to reduce the risk of contracting or spreading HIV in an interview that runs 256 pages would predominate coverage and spark a firestorm. Even more than John Paul II, who spoke about sex more than any of his predecessors, maybe even all of them put together, at least going back a couple hundred years, and who gave us the very salient teaching we now know as the Theology of the Body, Pope Benedict has spoken on several occasions directly to the crisis perpetuated by pseudo-scientific and increasingly ideological takes on human sexuality. In this interview he says about condom use:

"Concentrating only on the condom means trivializing sexuality, and this trivialization represents precisely the dangerous reason why so many people no longer see sexuality as an expression of their love, but only as a sort of drug, which one administers on one's own. This is why the struggle against the trivialization of sexuality is also part of the great effort so that sexuality may be valued positively, and may exercise its positive effect on the human being in his totality. There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

The quote above is enough to clarify what the Holy Father was trying to communicate, until, that is, it is ripped out of context by journalists who do not know the first thing about Catholic morality and who can't be bothered to speak to anyone who does. Needless to say such an understanding is crucial to comprehending what the Holy Father is saying.

The crux of the matter is that if someone is engaging in gravely sinful behavior (i.e., engaging in sexual relations with anyone other than his/her spouse), employing a condom does not increase the gravity of the sin. So, especially in an instance when someone is employing a prostitute, using a condom to reduce the risk of contracting or spreading HIV does not present a serious moral issue. Now, if that same person who engaged the prostitute is married, whether he can employ a condom while having sex with his spouse is a different moral question. Some may object by making a category mistake and employing an argument to the effect that the Church is indifferent to the spouse of the person who is HIV positive. The Church is not indifferent in the least to plight of anyone! So, the Church's answer to a married couple, one of whom is HIV-positive, is that they abstain from sexual intercourse.

So, if a person is determined to participate in high risk sexual behavior with multiple partners, using a condom does not increase the gravity of the sin (or its mortality, as it were). Keep in mind that while condoms may reduce the risk of transmitting HIV, they do not eliminate it altogether. Epidemiological studies have shown that abstinence and fidelity campaigns in Africa have been more effective at stemming the spread of HIV than the distribution of condoms, which has the effect of officially approving sexual irresponsibility.

It seems to me that throughout his pontificate, as well as prior to it, Pope Benedict has insisted that for us to act as though people are incapable of controlling their sexual impulses is to greatly diminish their humanity. In a time when so-called sexual liberation, which is not really a term we use anymore, is becoming the prevalent ideology in the West (this creates as much hostility between the West and the rest of the world as virtually anything), we have become accustomed to reducing the human person either to his/her libido and/or his/her sexual use. This certainly constitutes one of the greatest threats to our common humanity and, consequently, to our civilization. It is also precisely what the Holy Father means when he says that we must work "toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But [encouraging the use of condoms] is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

For an accurate and techincally detailed analysis of the Holy Father's comments, I can point you in no better direction that the response of Dr. Janet Smith. It is important not to react when certain members of the news media run amok and to recognize that the Holy Father's comment, even prior to any "clarification by the Vatican," does not represent a change in Church teaching, or even a "softening," to use a less charitable and wholly inadequate term.

The Holy Father was asked by Seewald in Light of the World if he expected difficulties when he became pope, to which Benedict responded:

"I had counted on it. But above all one must be very careful in evaluating a pope, whether he is significant or not, while he is still alive. Only afterward can one recognize what place, in history as a whole, a certain thing or person has. But that the atmosphere would not always be joyful was evident in consideration of the current global configuration, with all of the forces of destruction that are out there, with all of the contradictions that exist in it, with all the dangers and errors. If I had continued to receive nothing but agreement, I would have had to have asked myself if I were truly proclaiming all of the Gospel."

All holy men and women, pray for us

Adding to the confusion and widening the divide

I am hesitant to write about this topic again, especially since I have posted about it twice recently- last Monday in a post entitled At the service of an ideology and the Monday before that with my post "We love because he first loved us." My post last Monday was a general response to the many ideologues seeking to put the recent and heart-breaking suicides of five lovely young people, all them having as a causal factor their sexual orientation, at the service of politics. The first casualty of such misguided efforts is the truth. First, the truth about these young people, which should not be reduced in such a heartless manner. Second, the truth about the human person, at least as conceived of on a Christian understanding. Picking up on this same trend, my brother deacon, Greg Kandra, author of The Deacon's Bench, one of the best and, hence, one of the best known blogs in the Catholic blogosphere, responded today to a new initiative being undertaken by Episcopal Bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. As most people know, Robinson is an openly gay and extremely controversial figure, even within his own church, not to mention within the worldwide Anglican communion to which the Episcopal Church U.S.A. belongs.

Bishop Robinson's initiative is called It Gets Better. In his post Deacon Greg observes that, at least by its initial appearance, It Gets Better by denigrating Catholic, Southen Baptist, and LDS teachings about homosexuality. Predictably, Deacon Greg's observation that "Robinson is entitled to his opinion, and his own moral theology," but that it is impossible to "respect the way he has gone about brazenly dismissing (and, in fact, misrepresenting) the moral teachings of others," does not sit well with many, especially those who vehemently disagree with the Catholic Church's views about human sexuality, which is their right, a freedom we respect.

The upshot of Catholic teaching with regards to human sexuality for homosexual people is not, as one commentator suggested, that "God made junk when He made you, die." Nothing could be further from the truth, not to mention more lacking in charity! It seems to me that presently there are few things about which we are more confused than about our sexuality. For one thing it is over-emphasized by all parties and not just when it comes to homosexuality. To reduce faith to a single issue, be it sex, immigration, abortion, or whatever, is to make the mistake of reducing faith to a kind of moralism, which is never attractive, not to mention inherently un-Christian.

Recent events have convinced me more than ever that we must not define people, or allow people to define themselves, exclusively by their sexual orientation, by whom they prefer to have sex with and how they prefer to have sex. Of course, our sexual desire, our need in this regard, which is not merely, perhaps not even primarily, physical, is yet another manifestation of the need at the heart of our human, that is, our contingent and far from self-sufficent, being.

What the church teaches us is that it is Christ who ultimately satisfies our hungry hearts and that, to quote Springsteen, "everybody's got a hungry heart," that is, a needy heart, a heart that will be satisfied with nothing less than being loved beyond measure! It seems to me that the two groups most at risk of having their humanity reduced to their sexuality are homosexual young men and all young women. Indeed, there is something ideological if not downright sinister about such efforts, which are often subtle, especially when they appropriate the language of social justice.

To the young person who perceives that s/he is "different" and who feels threatened and/or terrified as a result we offer them our love, our protection, our support, as well as our active care and concern. It is characteristic of genuine love that it asks nothing in return. To offer them less is to fail to be Christians. As Deacon Greg said, we can respectfully disagree about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, how it fits into our overall understanding of the human person, especially our transcendent dimension, which cannot but determine how we relate to people pastorally, but to mischaracterize and make false accusations does nothing for Christian fellowship, nor for people caught in the crossfire.

Let's not forget what is most fundamental to Christian faith, summarized well by St. Paul: "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). This cuts across all humanity, down to each and every person, heterosexual and homosexual.

In the present cultural moment, our confusion about the nature and purpose of human sexuality is certainly not limited to a particular group. To wit: heterosexual people, including married couples, at least from the Catholic perspective, are just as confused as everyone else. In this light, I appreciate that Catholic teaching on sexuality invites us to consider our sexuality in the context of the totality of our personhood, especially in light of the end for which each one of us is lovingly made, encapsulated well by these famous words of St. Augustine- "God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you." Too often our conception of even our own personal sexuality is mundane, earth-bound, wholly lacking a transcendent dimension, which cannot but blind us not just to the truth, but to the goodness, and the beauty of our very being.

Veni Sancte Spiritus, Veni per Mariam

At the service of an ideology

Sadly, yet predictably, many have turned the recent suicides of five homosexual young men into propaganda at the service of an ideology. The good news is that these movements tend to reach a tipping point almost as quickly as they emerge by, ironically, turning into just the kind of thing they set out to oppose in the first place. I was thinking about all this yesterday afternoon, trying to determine how I might approach this issue in writing in a constructive and charitable way, which is why I am very grateful that my dear friend Deacon Greg Kandra's response to an article by Michele Somerville for The Huffington Post over on his blog The Deacon's Bench does just this.

Somerville's piece is a great example of what I tried to describe above. Stated simply, it is intemperate, unfair, and at the service of an ideology. All she does is further polarize and alienate people from each other by reducing the beliefs of others, in this case Catholics, to so much idiotic simple-mindedness. At the level of both Christian experience and reflection is the divinely revealed reality that "God is love" (1 John 4:8.16- ESV). From this one can easily deduce that God does not hate anyone. Her article reminds me of the well-intentioned, but very unbalanced, editorials I used to read in the campus newspaper at university. It takes the tone that "If you don't agree with me, then there is something really wrong with you."

Like the term islamophobia, with which I took issue during the great Ground Zero mosque debate, I think the term homophobia is slung around far too carelessly. Besides not describing any actual psychological malady, it has a disturbingly totalitarian ring to it, the kind employed by dangerous ideologies, like in the Soviet Union, where people were institutionalized for refusing to toe the party line. After all, a phobia is not merely a fear, but an irrational fear, one that needs therapy.

This is not to insist for one minute that homosexual people do not often experience prejudice and unjust discrimination, they certainly do in many quarters. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church states unequivocally that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." More apropos to the subject at hand, the Catechism goes on to assert that "[e]very sign of unjust discrimination" against homosexual persons "should be avoided" (2358). To wit, we have perfectly acceptable ways of discussing prejudice, unjust discrimination, and even bigotry, without inexpertly condemning others to the psych ward. Increasingly, the epithet homophobic is employed to stifle honest discussion.

With his post, Homophobia in the Church? Really?, Deacon Greg makes a valuable contribution to the current discussion by bringing balance and perspective. I think his conclusion is worth repeating:

"Catholic teaching on sexuality is more complicated and nuanced than many realize. And, despite what writers like Somerville may think, there is a moral framework on which that teaching is built -- a framework constructed on something truly radical, and audacious, and sacred, a framework that not only offers dignity to those people who experience same sex attraction, but which also demands that they be treated with Christian love."

Veni Sancte Spiritus, Veni per Mariam

To see with the eyes of Christ is to see the full measure of our humanity

In speaking about freedom in this year's Spiritual Exercises, Fr. Carrón, citing T.S. Eliot to the effect that we must resist the temptation to design "systems so perfect that no one will have to be good." Warning against this kind of utopianism, which always has a scientistic (as opposed to scientific) tinge, is something that unites the truly human voices of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, like Dostoyevsky, Orwell, Camus, Kołakowski, Giussani, even Kerouac, who, just as Camus wasn't just some generic existentialist (a moniker he despised), is not an idiotic Maynard G. Krebs-like beatnik, et. al. The pursuit of such utopias has been far more deadly for humanity than religion, a point frequently overlooked by the so-called New Atheists.

"If somebody wants to look to someone else to spare him his freedom (call him spiritual director, or boss, or friend - it's all the same), he has to clearly understand that he will not reach happiness in this way...if i don't understand this... I will always try to unload the drama of freedom onto someone else. This is the burden that the Grand Inquisitor...wishes to take off our backs, as he reproves Christ for the gift of freedom." The Grand Inquistor's objective "is to relieve man of this unbearable burden [his freedom] replacing freedom with authority. In this way mankind would be reduced to a happy flock of sheep, and happiness would be bought at the cost of freedom." Of course, this would be happiness. Perhaps the twentieth century's literary protagonist who shows us this, both be his resistance and his ultimate being brought to love Big Brother, is Orwell's Winston Smith, who was, as Orwell indicated with the original title of 1984, the last man in Europe.

The kind of scientifically reductive anthropology rejected by those mentioned above and many other astute observers of and contributors to a truly human culture arises from our collective loss of transcendence. Our loss of transcendence, in turn, begins with our tendency to give ontological status to the empirical findings of the social sciences, which is not to argue for one second that the social sciences make no contribution to genuine human knowledge, they certainly do. Applying the results of such research, as also happens when natural scientists, like Richard Dawkins, attempt to arrive at metaphysical conclusions from physical/material finding. Maslow's hierarchy of needs serves as a good example of this tendency because it is often applied in such an absolute way, both to one's person life and even more so to public policy. When applied as if Maslow had discovered some divinely revealed truth, it represents a reduction of our humanity because it actually inverts human need.

In Deus Caritas Est, the Holy Father wrote: "Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave" (par. 18).

Along these lines in his most recent Mail on Sunday column, the always provocative Peter Hitchens demonstrates the not infrequent Orwellian abuse of our absolute faith in scientistic humanism in a section entitled, Nanny knows true cost of having it all:

"Every few months, another successful career woman plunges into the debate about motherhood versus paid work. Now, the author Fay Weldon and the actress Emma Thompson are tussling over ‘having it all’. Neither of them has anything particularly interesting to say, because the truth cannot be spoken openly among such people.

"That truth is that children suffer terribly from the absence of mothers – and fathers – from their lives. Most of the social problems of our broken society stem from my generation’s selfish pretence that we can follow our own pleasures at the expense of our offspring, and nothing bad will happen. The lie is so pervasive that when research proves the hurt is genuine, new research has to be commissioned to contradict it. Hence the ridiculous American survey, much trumpeted by the Left-wing BBC last week, which says the damage done to young children by the absence of their mothers is outweighed by higher family income and better ‘mental health’ among their mothers. In other words, adult riches and pleasure cancel out childish loss and grief" (underlining emphasis mine). Hitchens is correct when he observes that this is "a repulsive calculation."