The Post-Christian Age

I have been in something of a “funk” for the past two days since I heard the presidential election results.  Not, perhaps, for the reason you might think.  While I firmly believe the person who was elected is the wrong person since he does not in any way I can tell represent my views, convictions, and faith; I don’t believe he will be much of a factor in changing the direction in which our country seems to be headed.  Ironically, I don’t believe it would have mattered which of the major candidates would have won.  The political will of the country seems to mirror the will of the people of the United States. 

As much as I would have liked to see a real change away from the secular humanistic values that have inundated the politics and policies of our nation in the past few decades, the “funk” I am feeling is because the statisticians are right.  We live in a Post-Christian country.  A CNN exit poll indicated the Catholic Vote went 50% to President Obama and 48% to Governor Romney.  Since the 80’s the Catholic vote has been pretty evenly divided.  It’s ironic that in 2004, 52% of Catholics voted for George W. Bush.  The statistical point is this:  While 85% of Catholics tell the pollsters that their faith is very important to them, they clearly don’t vote with their faith in mind.  “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m a Republican” is more important.[i]

There has been a steady and increasingly rapid decline in church attendance across all Christian denominations in the US and in most of the rest of the world.  As the Bishops who attended the recent Synod were shown, the one religious group that seems to be growing is the Muslims (both radical and moderate).  A You-Tube Video they saw, made by a Muslim Group, claimed that a majority of France would be Muslim by 2040. (Oh, and as sort of a punctuation mark, same-sex marriage achieved the same status at traditional marriage in the French national elections this week.)

What we hear the most about is the radical groups.  We hear (or should hear) about the blood bath taking place in Nigeria as Christians and Muslims are locked in a physical conflict.  We hear about the persecution of the Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Orthodox Churches in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.  Even in Israel, there is a strong anti-Christian undercurrent (ask a priest who has been there recently.  Many have been spit upon by members of the ultra-orthodox Hasidic communities).

Given this growing tide of anti-Christian, and even more pointedly anti-Catholic sentiment, is it any wonder that Cardinal George made his now-famous comment “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. (What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop) His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” [ii]We need only look at Europe to see where the United States is headed.

What do we do as Church?  What do we do, individually, as Catholic Christians?  As has been said many times we stay the course; we continue to set an example for our children, our peers, and those with whom we come in contact.  We live our faith guided firmly by its precepts and stand firm in the face of opposition, public and private.  We understand there is a difference between welcoming diversity and compromising our morality and that is something many secular humanists choose to ignore.

I must admit there are times when I feel we, as a Church, should be more outspoken and say to those who claim to be Catholic “If you claim our faith either act on its principles or leave.”  I know that sounds un-pastoral but I believe there must be a time in the future when we must call the faithful to stand visibly with us rather than hiding behind the banner of political correctness.

Pax

---

[i] Source is Wikipedia

[ii] Crisis Magazine, October 24, 2012

The Battle of Good vs. Evil in the World

I reflect today on the opening strophes of Psalm 36 as we pray them in Morning Prayer (Lauds). Here are verses 2-5.

The Universalis Translation	From the English Breviary	From the NAB Translation
Evil whispers to the sinner in the depths of his heart: the fear of God does not stand before his eyes. Evil’s flattering light disguises his wickedness, so that he does not hate it. His words are false and deceitful, he no longer considers how to do good. Even when in bed he plots mischief; he follows the wrong path; he does not hate malice.	Sin speaks to the sinner in the depths of his heart। There is no fear of God before his eyes. He so flatters himself in his mind that he knows not his guilt. In his mouth are mischief and deceit. All wisdom is gone. He plots the defeat of goodness as he lies on his bed. He has set his foot on evil ways, he clings to what is evil.	Sin directs the heart of the wicked man; his eyes are closed to the fear of God. For he lives with the delusion: his guilt will not be known and hated. Empty and false are the words of his mouth; he has ceased to be wise and do good. On his bed he hatches plots; he sets out on a wicked way; he does not reject evil.

In all three versions we can see that the psalmist understands the predilection of one under the influence of Evil. I use Evil with the capital “E” because we must treat it with respect. Personified it is a fallen angel; Satan, the Evil One, Beelzebub or any one of the thousands of names attributed to the Devil.

How do we know Evil when we see it? How do we fight against it? How do we avoid falling under its influence and becoming like the one to whom the psalmist refers? These are questions of utmost importance to those of us concerned with doing God’s will.

Let’s consider this battle as we might lay out the rules for a contest (given that the Olympics are taking place, this seems appropriate). The principle difference between the contest between God and the Evil One is that the rules are not the same for both sides. Here are the rules as I see them:

Rules for Team Evil	Rules for Team Divine
Those who love evil may lie, but their favorite tactic is to “bend” the truth – take a proven truth and twist it so it becomes false.	Those who do Christ’s will, must always seek and speak the truth.
Those who love evil will take advantage of another person whenever possible as long as it serves their own ends. They respect no one, even in many cases themselves.	Those who love God will treat others with respect due every human person.
Those who serve the Evil One embrace greed and seek to possess as much wealth as possible; taking it from any source even from those who have little.	Those who serve the Lord share what they have and show mercy to others, especially those who are poor and in need.
Those who serve Satan seek only to wield power over others for their own gain and will take any steps necessary to achieve their ends.	Those who serve the Lord invite others to share their good fortune and the love of God.

There are obviously more rules for both sides but this captures the obvious differences. The one question that immediately rises out of these differences is; “How in the world could good ever hope to overcome evil?” At each turn, the rules under which those who serve the Lord are bound are at a disadvantage compared to those not so encumbered.

Let us take a real world example. Let us say that a civil government wished to stamp out the influences of Christianity in order that those in power could gain even greater power and personal wealth. First they would need to convince those they could not coerce that Christianity was not desirable.

They would correctly reason that, in a secular world young people (below the age of 40) have two great loves; money and sex. Well, the government can’t really give away money because they must get it from the people they govern (although there are many of those constituents that seem to think that the government can do exactly that).

But what about sex! That is something they can give those who want it. That is they can take away the consequences. They would first provide free contraception so anyone could have sex with anyone else without the need to worry about God’s intended consequence – children – the gift of life. Those who care only about self-gratification – hedonism will grasp at this. They need not worry that their sexual partner may be degraded, humiliated, or scared emotionally. Ah, you might say, but contraception is not fail-safe. What happens if there is an unwanted consequence? That’s easy enough, right, let’s offer abortions for free as well. Then all the bases are covered.

Let’s go further. Let’s also make it a crime to call homosexual relationships disordered. Let them have sex for the sake of self-destruction if they wish. And they can call it “freedom” and make it sound like a good thing.

And when the Christians cry out that this is against God’s will, who wants to listen? We give you sex, all Christianity gives you is guilt. How can God’s faithful fight against that? What can we offer that will answer the secular mind set that only asks “What’s in it for me?”

Those of us who truly understand the word freedom understand that hedonism is not freedom, secular greed is not freedom, it is slavery for some and for others an addiction as bad as alcoholism or drugs. Freedom in a world governed by God’s rules means each person is precious in not only God’s eyes but in the eyes of each member of the faith community. With mutual love (not lust) comes an inner peace that can best be likened to a child’s peace. One who knows they are loved and safe in the care of their parents.

This, of course, is not even the greatest gift that comes with embracing the Lord. The greatest gift is the promise of life eternal. And therein lays the rub. When most people, even in our country, one of the most prosperous in the world, do not even plan for their retirement years. How do we hold up something as ethereal as “Eternal Life” as a benefit that will draw people to the truth?

We do have some additional advantages. Words like joy, peace, and contentment are not generally part of the vocabulary of those who love Sin. As much as they would like to challenge us on that point, those who love things are not loved in return. Those who seek only their own personal pleasure find it is lonely when they have no one to share it with. Face it, the greedy would find friends who are like minded and those friends are not willing to share, even a friend’s joy.

So what are we to do? We, who love God and are bound by the rules of the Divine Team, continue to follow those rules, finding our reward in God’s favor and grace. We turn the other cheek and give more than we are asked and expect our reward in deferred grace. In this way, like the neighbor who envies the lawn next door, those who see us will seek to follow – not easily, but inevitably. It is not efficient, but God’s never been one for efficiency.

Pax

Where Has Our Moral Compass Gone?

The secular news is full of stories about crimes against various segments of society. These crimes range from, so called, crimes of passion to financial scams by individuals and corporate or political greed. It was not too long ago, perhaps thirty or forty years, that the worst thing we could imagine was our children being offered a “reefer” (now known as “joints”) or perhaps invited to play “hooky”. Our doors, at least in the suburbs or in more rural communities, were rarely locked and rape was a capital crime. In those days a girl was “easy” if she kissed on the first date and the most common weekend pastime for teens was “cruising” the local burger joints if they were lucky enough to have a car to use. Those were the days when being connected involved writing letters and notes or perhaps being on the phone for as long as one’s parents would permit because there was no such thing as call waiting or answering machines.

We of older generations, not to mention those of the “Great Generation” who are still with us, wonder what has happened to our moral compass. Why is it OK for a child to insult a teacher at school? Why is it OK for a child to be given marijuana by a friend and be simply given a warning? Why is it OK to offer condoms in high schools let alone middle schools? Where did the idea of “responsibility for one’s actions” get lost?

It sometimes feels like this all started with the 60’s and the liberal ideals of “free love” and “if it feels good, do it.” Not being a social scientist or social historian, we will not speculate on the ultimate roots of the problem but rather on were a solution might lie. Since much of what seems to be driving the social and moral decisions in our country is sex, let’s begin there.

Let’s start with the basics. The Church has always held that, for a person to be in God’s good graces and hence eligible to be in full communion with the Christ and the community of faith, one must be chaste. For persons not bound by vows of celibacy, entered into voluntarily, with full knowledge of the perpetual nature of those vows, chaste is defined as abstinence from sexual relations (e.g. sexual intercourse) with a person not sacramentally joined to that person in marriage. That means all single persons are bound by Church teaching to abstain from such actions lest they fall into mortal sin.

For those who feel cohabitation is now a secular premarital tradition approved of by the Church, they are dead wrong and need to be told so by all involved. It’s not OK to live together without the blessing of sacramental marriage. To be fair to those who feel same sex attraction (a disordered state, identified as such based upon human biology) the same exact rule applies. The Church does not recognized and will not recognize a same sex union as sacramental, regardless of its duration and regardless of what civil law says.

So, why is it that such a fundamental idea as Chastity has become an anachronism? Social liberals have long held that the state (and the Church) should not have a say in an individual’s “personal life.” Why, we ask, should that view have come to be? Quite simply, sex, especially for those who are younger than 60 years old is not only hedonistically gratifying but, because of the human hormonal condition, a force that drives especially males, but females as well, to reproduce. The fact that purely sexual relationships often rely on one person extracting personal pleasure at the expense of another (fostering disrespect) is inconsequential as long as sexual gratification is achieved. The fact that this was intended as a creative act, to foster new life is seen as inconvenient and undesirable. Hence, to prevent this possibility, contraception is necessary. And, if contraception fails or is inconvenient and new life is initiated those that consider personal gratification their sole goal will willingly take the expedient course of infanticide (abortion). Personal responsibility is ignored, sexual anarchy prevails.

The basic underlying moral stance that is ignored or misunderstood by those who believe that sexual promiscuity is somehow liberating is the fundamental idea that sexual union between husband and wife is a gift given by God. Its intent is to provide the couple with the ultimate gift, new life. To ignore this intent is to reduce the human spirit to animalistic instinct in the drive to reproduce the species.

So often we hear from various pro-life groups that contraception is bad; that abortion is an abomination. What we do not hear is the logic behind those assertions. It is ironically the feminist movement that most vocally insists that women should not be told what to do with their bodies. Does that mean that women should be exempt from the concept of chastity? Does that mean that, just because men cannot get pregnant when they disrespect another purely for sexual gratification, women should have the same debasing privilege? In the end the argument put forward by the sexual anarchists is don’t bother us with sexual morality, we should be free to rape and kill all we want as long as we feel physically gratified.

Although it is not announced as blatantly as this, most mainstream media broad casts this message in all but the most fundamental programming. From a media standpoint, we have left the age of Christian morality far behind and are now embarking upon an age of unprecedented “sexual freedom”.

And what are we, who hold fast to the concepts that Christ teaches, to do? We must hold our ground and stand squarely against those who foster the objectification of the human person as purely as sexual thing to be used or not as seen fit. We must cry out saying every person has worth from the unborn to the elderly and every person deserves to be respected. When challenged we must be ready to present the logic behind our arguments not just saying contraception is bad or abortion is murder, explain why that is so. Tell those who belittle our attitude that it is for them and for their children (if any survive) that we hold human life sacred.

Pax

The picture above is “The Holy Family” by Sisto Badalocchio, c. 1610

Paradox Humane Vitae vs. Environmental Conservation

Introduction: - Paradox Humane Vitae vs. Environmental Conservation

For the past several years I have been working on an apostolate of the Word and have found great satisfaction in that project. There are times, however, that issues surface that take my musings outside the purely hermeneutic and I feel called to reflect upon things of the world and forces affecting our lives as faithful Christians striving to live our values in a world that is rapidly turning away from them.

It is for this reason that I am starting this companion Blog. I place this in the public domain where I can invite others to help me refine my own understanding through dialogue. Your thoughts and challenges are welcome.

Today, as on most days, I take a look at what other Catholic Bloggers have concerned themselves about. A fellow Deacon, Greg Kendra who writes Deacon’s Bench has surfaced an issue that points squarely at a paradox that challenges to Humane Vitae encountered when seen from the purely rational perspective. Deacon Greg writes:

“The nation’s largest Catholic university will feature a commencement speaker who believes ‘the rest of life would benefit enormously’ from the extinction of mankind, considers Christianity ‘the most dangerous of devotions,’ and boasted about weakening the ‘dissolutive, oppressive institutions of organized religion.’”

He goes on to describe how E.O. Wilson will address a combined ceremony of DePaul University‘s College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and its College of Science and Health.

Anonymous Catholic Universities

Let’s first make some observations about a majority of large “Catholic Universities” founded over one hundred years ago. Most of them have become highly secularized and in a number of cases, where the name of the university is not blatantly religious (e.g. DePaul, Georgetown, Boston College, etc.) I would hazard a large part of the population does not even know they are technically Catholic institutions. In an attempt to continue to serve the universal population (and generate revenue), many of these universities have embraced the inclusionary principles of secular universities and colleges – providing a voice for new age rhetoric and secular morality. Under the banner of academic freedom, many philosophies and moral views have grown up in these organizations which are anathema to the Church’s teachings.

It is only when situations arise like Notre Dame inviting President Obama to speak (and giving him an Honorary Doctorate) and Georgetown inviting (and apparently un-inviting) Kathleen Sebelius, head of the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to speak, that the fact that they are Church-affiliated organizations comes to light.

Smart People without Faith

Back to E.O. Wilson – he is a humanist! That’s the best short description of his highly recognized and awarded life-view. Like MOST academics in the life sciences he has the Darwinian view that life, far from being divinely created, is simply a culmination of billions of years of natural experimentation (or, as another famous Atheist/Humanist, Richard Dawkins has stated – life on earth was brought here by aliens). He cannot or will not consider that there is a power in this universe that he cannot deduce through logic that would have an impact on natural selection.

The Catholic Paradox

While this paradox does not apply to everyone, there is a significant group of the faithful that have to come to grips with it. Here are the challenging facts:

1. The Earth is a closed system. That is, for all practical purposes, nothing comes in from outside (except heat energy from the Sun and limited mater from meteorites and other space-born particles that may be attracted by the planet’s gravity); and nothing leaves except some atmospheric erosion and what we shoot into space.

2. While matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it can be changed from useful and healthful into toxic and harmful.

3. As the earth’s population increases there is a greater and greater strain on the natural resources of the planet and Wilson’s logic begins to look sound. Since resources are finite – the only solution appears to be that which files in the face of what the Church teaches about the dignity of human life and the sanctity of the gift God shares with us in procreation.

There is the paradox; logic says population control and even reduction is becoming necessary and yet we know that contraception and sterilization are not solutions we can accept let alone embrace. So what is the global solution? Does it lie in prayer alone?

It has been argued by a close friend that the concerns expressed above are overstated; that God will provide and that, as great as our scientific knowledge is, the omniscience of God will not allow us to fall into the abyss of global famine and starvation. I am more of the opinion that was expressed by St. Ignatius of Loyola who tradition holds said, “We must work as if it all up to us, and pray as if it is all up to God.”

Pax - Dcn. Jim