Church: Teaching Rules vs. Teaching Love

A friend wrote me:

I've been talking to someone who is interested in what the Church teaches but has a BIG problem with the Church hierarchy.

Basic argument:  If we love God we keep His commandments. Keeping His commandments out of love is BETTER than keeping them out of fear. And following God's rules are better than following rules made up by men.

Why doesn't the Church simply teach people to LOVE God - rather than focusing on the rules?"

Stan, do you have any knowledge of books or tapes?   Or, if you have thoughts on the subject they would be warmly welcomed!

My response:

I don't, off hand, have any books I'm aware of on that particular position.

But, I am very familiar with the argument and have a response that fits with my understanding of church history and teaching.

The difference between the motivations of love and fear is insignificant compared to the difference between obeying or not. It's like the decision to run a red light or not. We can NOT run the red light out of love for the government (a stupid concept) or we can NOT run the red light out of fear of being killed if we do. The goal of the red light is to protect us. (It's kind of a glass half-empty vs. half-full argument. In the end it doesn't matter. Are you an optimist or a pessimist by nature? Do you have a choleric or a sanguine personality?)

God's love is unconditional whether you obey him or not. But his reward of blessing and eternal life is very conditional on our obedience. It doesn't matter if we obey out of love of him or fear of him. The fear comes from the dastardly physical consequences. And so we come to love the law, because they keep us (if we obey them) from the consequences.  Thus, it might be a maturity thing. When we're a child we fear touching the stove, but as we grow older we love the fact that we were warned against touching it.

Love and Reward are not the same thing. People confuse the two concepts and wishfully but fatefully believe wrongly that if God loves me he will give me blessing. But that's failed logic. A loving father disciplines his children. Why? Because he knows that love must be consistent with right judgement and coincide with what is good, true and beautiful, -- that is natural law. True love is always cooperative with how nature works. Love is the same thing as truth. You can't separate them. Do I wear sunscreen because I fear getting a sunburn, or do I love sunscreen because it prevents the pain of a sunburn. I don't really see any difference. Use the sunscreen, enjoy being outside.

So, consequently LOVE and FEAR are the SAME THING, or they are on the SAME scale of values and motivation. They are the same coin, but different sides. (Any number of metaphors can come close to describing the relationship between LOVE and FEAR. It is a mistake (in theology) to believe they are different.

Society also has a problem with feelings of "guilt." But guilt is good when it keeps you from doing stupid things in the future. 

So, in the end it really does not matter if you obey out of Love, or obey out of Fear. The fact is that you are obeying. Just like you want to obey the laws of the land (or most of them). Do you love the laws of your state because they bring order, or do you obey the laws because you fear jail? Is there a difference?

One explanation is that different personalities are motivated by different stimuli or emphasis. Each of the four basic types of personalities (c.f. Brain Mapping) has it's own motivations.

Another explanation is that based on what kind of life we live, or what kind of day we're having we're going to be motivated some days by love and others by fear.

Human Beings tend to want to simplify everything and blame all effects on one casue. But nature tells us that physical effects have multiple causes. (c.f. The Butterfly Effect.) And so in this argument of Love vs. Hate, many people will want to say it's one or the other. This is known as the EITHER-OR fallacy. The answer—as is in most things—is not EITHER love OR hate, but AND-BOTH. It's a combination that saves us, and gives us life.

King David said he "loved" God's law. I love that. David is saying, "I love the fact that disobeying the law scares the hell out of me. I love what is right. I hate what is wrong. I love life, so I obey the rules. I hate death so I obey the rules." The rules don't change, but my motivations might. They are built into nature. Gravity cannot be loved or hated. It is a fact. Do you want to love the fact that you can stand up and not fall down (due to gravity and your body's ability to discern it and control your muscles), or do you fear gravity and are therefore careful about where you walk—not too close to the cliff of a canyon? In your day-to-day life, you'll use both of those motivations to stay alive and be happy. Thus, Love and Fear are on the same continuum.

My take on Church praxis (what it does in practice) is that the Church focuses too much on God's love with very little emphasis on the rules. I criticize bishops and priests for not teaching more on the fear of hell and condemnation for sin. (I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd benefit from a little fear preached into me about the consequences of sin.) Thus, we have cafeteria Catholics who ignore the Church's rules, and they will consequently pay God's penalty. Note, it is not the Church's self-imposed penalty. The church is simply telling you about God's penalty. I'd listen.

But many folks, like your friend, don't see that. Why?

People that dislike the Church's rules and claim the church focuses on the rules too much are doing one, if not all, of these things:

 A. They want to do what they want to do and not have anyone tell them what to do. (You probably know someone like that. Perhaps  you see them every morning when you brush your hair. I know I do.) It's easier to attack the Church and claim the rules are the rules of men when in fact this is God's Boat we're in, not the church's. People can't argue with God, so they pick something fallible and pretend the Boat belongs to man. Sorry folks. Man did not invent, create, nor does he control nature.

 B. They are listening more to social commentary that biasly reports what the Church teaches, rather than directly studying what the Church teaches. So much of what is in the news is interrupted by news writers based on their negative bias against the Church rather than on an accurate understanding of the Church. The recent flap about the Vatican correcting the women religious in the U.S. is a perfect example. Or the news media's interpretation of the bishops' condemnation of Obama's health care rules is another. In general, the news is wrong about what the Church believes and does.

C. Their pride does not allow them to accept that God has rules of natural law that require things of them. God loves us so much that he gave us gravity, and a whole bunch of other mechanisms that give us life. But if you whine about it and ignore it, you'll kill yourself.  You are free to make any choice you want, but you can't choose the consequence, God does that. Pride goes before a fall. Shakespeare intoned, "He who runs stumbles." The edge of the cliff is always there waiting, just waiting for the fool who says either (a) there is no God, or (b) there is a God and he's just like me.  Right. Hey, Jacko, can you fly?

D. They are not listening to the church's message of God's love that came through Jesus Christ, but only remember the rules (that God establishes, not man) and  they mistakenly claim the rules are made by man. Not so. (more on this below)

E. They generally do not believe that rules of any kind, really matter. Of course, they may be the first to point out that your grammar in a sentence is wrong, because the rules are not followed. Do you follow the rules of grammar because you love being understood, or do you follow the rules of grammar because you fear being misunderstood? I say, there's no difference. But having the rules are absolutely necessary to communicate and live in an ordered community.

The Church's job is to discern the immutable laws of the universe and compile a guide for living that can lead to happiness. That is where the Catechism and the rules it contains come from. They are anything but arbitrary, but they are arrived at BY USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which by the way the Church originally came up with. For over 6,000 years of human history Church leaders (if you go back to the Jewish fathers) observed nature, tried to figure it out and write down rules for behavior that would lead to happiness. (Have you read Proverbs or Sirach lately?)

Centuries ago the study of philosophy and physics WERE THE SAME thing. Then as we gained more understanding we saw the differences between metaphysics and physics. Then, mankind tried to answer the question WHY... which introduced the realm of religion. They all overlap—religion, philosophy and physics. Physics describes how something works mechanically (the body), philosophy tries to explain how the intellect intersects with all disciplines (the mind), and religion tries to explain WHY in terms of morality (the spirit).   All of these disciplines try to describe how to LOVE life and HATE death. Physics deals with atoms, Philosophy deals with thoughts, and Religion deals with origins, purposes and final disposition. ALL THREE, interestingly enough, deal with the dimensions of space and time we cannot perceive (there are more than ten all total). 

So, today, the Church (being historically involved heavily in all three disciplines) tries to focus on the religious and moral side by asking: What kind of rules do we need to follow IN ORDER TO LOVE GOD?   And in this case LOVING God, FEARING God, and LIVING HAPPILY are all the SAME THING.

BTW: Proverbs 9;10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Again, ALL THE RULES existed before the Church came around just like gravity existed before Newton came on the scene.  The Church just wrote them down like Isaac Newton wrote down the laws of Gravity. And by the way, when Isaac did that, he did it as part of the Church's system.  None of the rules are arbitrary by any measure. Only people that like to spit into the wind will think so.

So, in the end...if you want to find your way to the end of the maze successfully follow the rules. And rememer...

-- A person with no faith in God but who obeys God's rules of order will be blessed here on Earth and may or may not be blessed eternally based on God's omniscient judgment of how well that person followed their conscience (an individual's understanding of the rules).

-- A person with faith in God who does not obey God's rules of order will NOT find blessing on earth and may spend a lot of time in purgatory before getting to heaven. (Again the Church's job is to help maximize temporal blessing and speed our entry to heaven.)

The church's job, therefore, is to discover what is true and promote it for mankind's temporal and eternal benefit.  End of story.  Nothing is arbitrary. All is natural.

Alex Jones' Bible Study on St. James

 PRODUCTION REPORT

This blog-post will be updated to keep our contributors and others up-to-date on the project's progress. For background on this project please visit the Alex Jones Bible Study Crowd Funding Page.

Major Sponsors:
•  CHERYL EVANS
•  ABUNDANT GRACES BOOKSTORE 

June 3, 2012 - Art Direction Needed. Lesson Themes Announced.

We are in need of set elements that have something to do with St. James and Alex's lesson themes that are listed here; all citations are from the Epistle of James. 

1. Trial and Temptation (1;1, 1:2-8; 12-18)

2. Poverty and Riches (1:9-11; 5:1-6)
3. Wisdom from Above (1:5-8)
4. Wisdom from Below (3:13-18)
5. Hearing and Doing the Word (1:19-27)
6. Warning Against Partiality (2:1-13)
7. Faith and Words (2:14-26)
8. The Tongue (3:1-12)
9. Friendship with the World (4:1-10)
10. Judging/Correcting a Brother (4:11-12; 5:19-20)
11. Warning Against Boasting (4:13-17; 5:12)
12. Patience (5:7-11)
13. Prayer (5:13-20)

June 1, 2012 - Production Days Set.  Met with Fr. Jerry and Alex at St. Suzanne and confirmed production dates:

Setup: Mon. July 9, 2012 (10 AM - 6 PM)

Shoot: Tu, Wed, Th. - July 10-12, 2012 (5 PM - 10 PM)

Tearout: Fri. July 13, 2012 (10 AM to Noon)

Booked Reinforcement, Inc.  (a staging company in Livonia) to provide black drape and light trusses for the setup. 

We need volunteers to help with setup and production. I'll not clutter this blog with that list. If you can help any of those days, please call Stan 248-344-4423 x-5.


May 28, 2012 - DVD Cover Design, List of Contributors Uploaded, DVD Placeholder Web Page.  It's memorial day, time to remember the U.S. Military and the protection they sacrificially afford us, plant flowers, watch a parade, and catch up on work. Today we (1) created a preliminary design with dummy text of the DVD jacket, (above), (2) established a COMING SOON placeholder on Alex and Donna's Library page at Nineveh's Crossing that now lists all of Our Contributors (THANK YOU!), and (3) heard from Alex giving a mission on St. Lucia in the Caribbean. He sent this picture of the Church where he's teaching. He says they had 4 days of torrential down pours, but today it's post card weather. 

As part of recognizing our contributors, I need to highlight two in particular. One is Cheryl Evans of Livonia, MI and the other is Laura Smith and Terri O'Connell of Abundant Graces Bookstore in Bethlehem, PA. Both made sponsorship level contributions to this effort.If you know Chery, please thank her for us, and please visit Laura and Terri's store and website.



May 24, 2012 - Production Funding Raised. Project gets GREENLIGHT. We're in contact with technical crew, the parish, and Alex to set up dates and arrange for equipment. Alex is currently on a mission in St. Lucia (Caribbean) and in June he'll be in Jamaica. So earliest production looks like July 10, 11, and 12. But a lot of coordination to do before we settle on those dates.

Bashing Hollywood a Rite of Christian Passage

I'm in Hollywood for a little more than two weeks doing what I can to promote the principles in my book The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office Success within the Hollywood community and get several scripts produced. I helped co-produce a film conference, am taking meetings with producers and industry friends, and will make several appearances (including presentation of an all-day workshop) promoting the proper structure of story telling (in films and television) that elevate what is good, true and beautiful. Yesterday I had lunch with a Sony Entertainment Executive, pitched a couple stories and left behind a script and a treatment.  When I get back to Michigan we will hopefully start production on a television series for EWTN if our crowd funding effort for the Alex Jones Bible series is successful.

While here. I'm meeting with other Christians who are applied full-time the movie and television industry. With them, I lament the bashing that Christians elsewhere seem to take pleasure in dumping on Hollywood, as if there is some evil conspiracy out here to destroy Christianity.  But Hollywood is only at the top of the list for these Christian critics because of the publicity that natural is part of a movie's promotion. THERE IS NO EVIL CONSPIRACY in Hollywood. The conspiracy is promulgated by Satan within the hearts and minds of an ill-informed Christians. And because of the ill-informed bashing done by Christians, the Christian bashing Christians at times receive, is well-deserved. Here's an example.

Today, a friend sent me a review of a "movie" titled THE PERFECT FAMILY (IMDB link) on the Catholic News Service's website. Here's the log line:.

A devoutly Catholic wife and mother has been nominated for one of the church's top awards. She then goes about trying to prove she has the "perfect" family, refusing to accept them for who they are. 

The film was panned for its anti-Catholic bias. (I have not seen it). But the review upset me for a different kind of reason.  The review bashes Hollywood  in general as if THE PERFECT FAMILY was a perfect example of how the entertainment industry as a whole treats Christianity; or as if this "film" (I keep putting that term in quotes for a reason) was part of the Hollywood system and representative of most Hollywood producers. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in the case of this film. Here's what I wrote the Catholic News Service.

"THE PERFECT FAMILY" is no more "Hollywood" than the defunct P.O. Box of its production company's address. No studio was involved. It was as independent an effort as one can get.  It grossed all of $14,300 [this was an error, it grossed $107,721 domestically, and never saw more than 25 screens]. The distributor is/was in NY, with 2 films in its roster. The Catholic News Service should be criticized for pandering to Hollywood-phobia on a slow news day. For anyone to watch this (assumed) drivel and think it is newsworthy to report on, demonstrates how lazy Catholic media writers are, claiming to be victimized by Hollywood, but then doing nothing good, true or beautiful to counter it. Essentially "no one" saw this "movie" so why report on it? The review assumes that criticizing drivel is a virtuous activity. It's garbage (the review) of a garbage "film", and reminds me that Christians have abdicated their responsibility to promote what is good and are very much to blame for culture's downfall. Christians should get out of the Church basement (where mold and sloth doth corrupt) and be a witness for the light. Until they do that, Catholics have no business, right, or justification to criticize what they have allowed. In the meantime I have a couple of pro-Catholic films that need funding. Where are the Catholic film investors?

Bashing Hollywood by Catholics who are too lazy to do anything else seems to be a rite of passage.  I'm not bitter, but I am spending my life savings traveling to Hollywood trying to get mainstream movies made that elevate Catholicism. While here I meet many, many Catholics and other Christians that are sacrificing their lives doing a lot of good, and working with a lot of pagans who are also trying to do good but are just uninformed. And yet these Christians in the entertainment industry get very little support from the flyovers who throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is no evil conspiracy in Hollywood. But there is a great deal of nobility seeking of the truth (by Christians and non-Christians alike) and there are way too few Christians out here to help in the process.

 (Some months later 3-8-13.) I just read a blog interview with the producers of THE PERFECT FAMILY and how they got the funding for the movie. It's a typical strategy and makes good sense: Attach name actors to key roles so you can attract public attention and get the movie into theaters and into distribution. The "names" will attract viewers and "success." In this case the attachments, in part, were Emily Deschanel, Kathleen Turner, Jason Ritter, Richard Chamberlain and others. It's essentially an all star cast for a movie made for under $1MM. That is an amazing feat and the script must be very clever. It is now on my "to see" list. I will report back. But one thing is clear. In spite of the all star cast, there may be something terribly wrong with the movie. It appears the public shunned it.Or, maybe, they just never got distribution.

March 8, 2013. Pam and I just watched THE PERFECT FAMILY. It is a terrific Catholic movie that tells the truth about imperfect people and how they strive against all sorts of moral relativism to be true to Jesus Christ. Katheen Turner was not only the lead but also one of the Executive Producers. Anne Renton's frosh directorial debut was near perfect.  When Catholic film reviewers trash this film they are being nothing less than sanctimonious. The film tells the truth of an imperfect person trying her best to be be loving, kind, and true to the faith.

Here Comes The Catholic Church - Fr. John Hollowell

FREE LITANY DOWNLOADS - Relieve Anxiety - Find Peace

FREE LITANY DOWNLOADS

Stan & Pam Williams'
Favorite Litanies
RELIEVE ANXIETY • PRAY • MEDITATE • PEACE • SOLITUDE • WORSHIP

Located at the bottom right of NinevehsCrossing.com
 of our HOME PAGE
Scroll to the bottom right

Some years back, one of our adult daughters was going through a particularly difficult time. To help her go to sleep one of us would sit by her bed and read litany prayers to her. Doing so helped her relax, trust God, and sleep well. We put them to tape and later to CD, and she used them whenever she needed to rid herself of anxiety. Today, we use them ourselves as we walk, drive, or try to go to sleep. When I have a busy day writing that takes me into the night it will always be difficult for me to get to sleep. So, I plug in my iPhone earplugs, start the Litanies, turn down the volume, and pray with them until I'm asleep. Works every time to calm me and focus on what's really important -- the things of God.

We used to sell these as a CD or MP3 downloads, but it was too much trouble bookkeeping the sales. So, we're not offering them permanently for free. If you like these, or have suggestions for others, please email us and share your thoughts.  

There is no music, just Pam and my voice, praying the verse and response. We hope you will use these, share them with your friends, and send them to our site to get other useful resources to strengthen your faith.

The five MP3 litanies you'll find at the bottom right of our home page are: 

-- Most Holy Name of Jesus  (5:06) 
-- Most Holy Trinity (5:09) 
-- Most Precious Blood of Jesus (2:58)
-- Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (3:38)
-- Resignation to the Will of God (4:14)  

Blessings,

Stan Williams 

The Bishops' Abdication of Responsibility

I've promised myself that I would not spend much time on this, as I have another calling that demands my time in this same moral fight. I've been going back and forth with a popular Catholic radio show host and long-time friend about the HHS Contraception Mandate and Healthcare. He disagrees with Paul Rahe and Rush Limbaugh (who passionately read on-air most of Paul Rahe's essay "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil"), who claim that the bishops have brought this troubling infringement of the government on themselves by being so supportive of government sponsored and mandated healthcare... as long as it didn't include abortion, contraception, et al.

The following blurb confirms that the bishops have long been a supporter of universal healthcare INITIATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT (with a few moral limits). Let's first put that stake in the ground, and then examine the consequences of the bishop's actions.

This came last night from dailynews@calcatholic.com

====== QUOTE======
The following came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on February 14

WASHINGTON—The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said in a press briefing at the White House on February 13, “...I would simply note with regard to the bishops that they never supported health care reform to begin with...”
“This is not the case,” said Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.


“Since 1919, the United States Catholic bishops have supported decent health care for all and government and private action to advance this essential goal,” Bishop Blaire said.“Long before the current battles, the Catholic Church was persistently and consistently advocating for this overdue national priority.”

In the recent health care debate the bishops called universal and affordable health care “an urgent national priority and moral imperative.” The U.S. Conference’s criteria insisted reform should be truly universal, protect human life and conscience and not discriminate against immigrants. “The [conference] opposed the final legislation because it failed this test, a judgment sadly but clearly borne out by the failure of the law and the recent regulation to protect conscience and religious liberty,” explained Bishop Blaire.

“I hope those who made or repeated this false statement will correct the record and report the bishops’ long and consistent record of  support for health care which protects the life, dignity and consciences of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.”

====== END QUOTE======


My radio friend points out that the bishops' support of Obamacare (sans the morally repugnant coverages for things like contraception and abortion) is consistent with the Church's teachings that seek the solidarity of humanity, the distribution of the earth's goods from those who have abundance to those in need, and the principle of subsidiarity.

I too agree with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us in regards to these principles, without hesitation. I understand how they are in accordance with Natural Law. I don't believe them blindly, but know I can defend them easily.

But I believe that the bishops err when they transfer responsibility for the fulfillment of those concepts from the venue of the individual, the family, and small organizations controlled by individuals (all with the oversight of the Church), into the hands of a government that is not prepared to be the moral arbiter of all things human, which healthcare nearly encompasses.

And my reading of the CCC backs up that view. Nowhere does the Church remove itself or the family from the responsibility of these things, and nowhere does the CCC give that responsibility into the hands of the civil authorities

My friend asks me if I think I know more about the teachings of the Church that the bishops? Of course not. But I'm not arguing "knowledge" but rather "practice" and the wisdom and discernment that accompany the implementing of that knowledge. Many lay persons were slow to hold the bishops accountable for their wisdom and discernment of how they dealt with sexually abusive priests.  Knowledge in that scandal was not the issue. Wisdom was. I have a letter from one particular bishop that declares to me that protecting the collegiality of the bishops is more important than publicly taking a pro life stance. Cardinal Ratzinger declares that shepherds who let poison spread in order to avoid conflict are like "mute dogs" and he finds their actions "repulsive. " So, I'm not real quick to embrace the bishops individual or collective actions without some common sense comparisons to Church doctrine and principles. You don't need to be a theologian to realize that a government that legalizes abortion, contraception, and fosters all sort of other immoral practices is not prepared to legislate and rule the morally delicate territory of healthcare. And in such an environment the bishop's embrace of government mandated healthcare is mind-boggling. Indeed it goes beyond mind-boggling. It's irrational.

So, why then are the bishops so anxious for the government to do such a thing? I think it's because they have inadvertently given up their God given responsibility to be moral leaders. They see themselves as impotent and unable to persuade their sheep to follow them. Their laxness in publicly excommunicating various politicians like Nancy Pelosi is an example of their avoidance of conflict, hoping to foster respect by tolerating evil.  They believe that government coercion will work better than Christ's love as exampled in the Church. (Admittedly, with recent scandals, which the bishops have been partly responsible for furthering, they are right that people do not universally see the Church as a great example of Christ's love.)

But the solution isn't to abdicate their responsibility to the government, which is what they have done, and why Rush Limbaugh and Paul Rahe say the bishops have sold their souls to the devil. The solution is for the bishop's to humbly re-embrace their leadership role as society's moral leaders and actively and publicly guide the work of solidarity and the distribution of goods. How should that be done? Certainly not through government taxation and coercion, which violates the principles of true charity and marginalizes an individual's accountability to live out the Golden Rule. But rather the bishops should lobby vigorously for laws that encourage individual responsibility, and that facilitate individual generosity and accountability. And then the bishops need to motivate the laity to live out the beauty of Christ's teachings to care for those in need around us. I think many people do this naturally. Certainly, many of the very rich in this country actively give away more of their wealth than they keep. It is the individual generosity of those who have abundance that builds educational institutions, and funds non-profits that do, literally, a world of good. Exempting such generosity from taxation (both of the giver and the receiver) is just one way that government fulfills the Church's request for human solidarity and distribution of goods. It is the individual, and small organizations led by individuals where bureaucracy is at a minimum, that the Church's principles that bring dignity to the human endeavor are most efficient and effective.

American Catholic Leadership Has Sold Its Soul to the State

Paul A. Rahe

Perhaps the most important half-hour in media, in some years, occurred this afternoon from about 1:45 PM to 2:15 PM (ET) on Rush Limbaugh's show. He read with gusto and salient comment, significant portions of an essay by Hillsdale College professor Paul R. Rahe titled "American Catholicism' Pact with the Devil". You can read the entire essay in all its brilliance at the link in the last sentence. Rahe (a Catholic) says with historical and current depth what I've been fond of saying: Abortion is a problem that is at the foot of the American bishops. Had they been doing their job as moral leaders and not being mute dogs, abortion would not be the law of the land and it would be rare.

Rahe points out that the current contraception debate is what the American Catholic Church leadership has fostered and it's come home to bite. Here are a few paragraphs from Rahe's piece that appears on the conservative website RICOCHET.

==== QUOTE ====

Cardinal Bernadin

In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.

I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
====== END QUOTE =====


Post Script: Later in the day, after perusing the turmoil in the Catholic and public radio and blog-s-sphere) about Rahe's article, I listened to one Catholic radio show host attempt to tear down Rahe's essay with arguments that are best described as ad hominem, strawman, and equivocation/. This host criticize Rahe for being a blogger from nowhere, bitter, and inaccurate, and fallacious.  I carefully studied Rahe's essay, reading each paragraph 2-3 times, looking for fallacies (which I know something about), and concluded that Rahe's perspective was credible and accurate, objective, and redemptive in tone, to say nothing of his credentials as an historian. You'll notice the essay takes us back to the Magna Charta and moves forward through time, building a logical case for the bishop's failure to lead in recent memory, and giving over responsibility to the state, with advice and lessons for today and the future. Rahe also acknowledges that the bishops are doing a good job today. If  you want, however, to "read" Rahe with some biased emotion, subscribe to Rush Limbaugh and listen to today's program from about 1:45 to 2:15 PM ET. It was a rush.

Protestantism: No Moral Bark in the HHS Mandate Debate

Why the Protestant teaching of "Faith Alone" is Dangerous Ground.

Summary: Protestants can only argue the Constitutional side of the HHS Contraception Debate; they have no moral integrity to argue the moral side or what they have taught verbally, and practiced for decades

Here's the simple explanation of why Obama-Pelosi-Sebelius-and-Progressives (OPSP) think they are not violating Christian principles by mandating free contraception to all Americans.

They believe -- literally -- what Protestants have taught, that salvation is by FAITH ALONE (Sola Fide). While Protestants technically refer to Faith Alone in the concept of initial justification, it sounds to the ill-informed that it is the bedrock of Christian life -- that Christian principles are acts of the mind and not of the body.

Sola Fide became the banner cry of Protestants in objection to what they falsely believed was the teaching of Catholicism (that we are saved only through and by our works). Catholicism never taught that, but because of some misled bishops and at least one pope at the time of Luther and Calvin, the political emphasis was in the "works" direction. That caused Luther to rebel, something the Catholic Church does not fault him for. Calvin was a different sort. See footnote [1].

Now, most Protestants do not practice what they preach. They preach "Faith Alone" but they don't practice it. Out of their love for Christ they do good works. Plenty of them. They will argue that their "faith" informs their "life" or daily behavior.

This distinction between faith and works is an important distinction in the current political debate about OPSP's mandate for free contraception to all Americans.  The mandate's philosophy (and thus the philosophy of OPSP, is that Christianity is a "faith only" proposition. That is, it only exists in the mind. In other words, OPSP believe what Protestants have been saying out loud since the founding of the country: Our faith is what we do mentally, not what we do outwardly.

So, it is logical to OPSP that mandating a "work" should have no impact on the Christian "faith" -- because Christians are really just "faith alone" -- their religion is one of the mind -- it's just a psychological state -- a mental trick -- and it really has no effect on the physical realm -- or works.  To OPSP Christianity is a private matter -- what you do in your home or church -- and it should have no place in the physical, material realm. They ask, "Isn't that what faith alone means?"

But OPSP cannot say that to the "practicing" and "knowledgeable" Catholic [2], who have consistently taught that faith informs the works that we do. Catholicism has always taught that faith and works are inseparable -- two sides of the same coin. And that is why in the current debate it is Catholicism that leads the charge against the OPSP attack. Only the the Catholic Church has the moral integrity to do so. Protestants can only argue the Constitutional side of the issue; they have no moral integrity to argue the moral side or what they have taught verbally, and practiced for decades with regard to contraception, which leads logically to "faith alone" -- that religion is just a mental act (faith alone) and that contraception is morally okay.

See also my post on Humanae Vitae 17.

[Footnote 1] What upset Luther doesn't explain the other Protestant rebellions against the Church, e.g., Calvin's or Henry VIII's lust for power. Calvin's thirst was for spiritual control, Henry VIII's was for political control.

[Footnote 2] There are really very few "practicing" and "knowledgeable" American Catholics. Most have been Protestantized. Kathleen Sibelius, in fact, baptized a Catholic is now denied communion because of her political practice of supporting abortion and contraception. Catholic bloggers think Pelosi will soon be excommunicated since she has repeatedly fulfilled the canonical requirements of such an action over her support for abortion and contraception and other progressive, immoral policies. But, when the bishops get up the backbone to do what the Church requires, is another thing. 

Humanae Vitae (via the Holy Spirit) to the Rescue

The caption says: I TOLD YOU SO

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY PROTESTANT FAMILY WHO ARE CONVINCED CATHOLICISM IS WRONG AND ONLY THEIR CHURCH IS RIGHT.... even when they change churches because they don't like what their pastor was teaching.(*)

Dear Family,

I trust you are paying attention to this very important moral battle for the soul of our nation. You may be thinking that the Religious Liberty enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution is being trampled upon by Obama and his minions.

But there is a more important battle being waged. It is a battle for the souls of men and women, young and old, and those unborn as predicted by Pope Paul VI in 1968.

 

In 1968, the lone and very unpopular voice of Pope Paul VI wrote a REAFFIRMATION of Church teaching about artificial birth control and contraception in all its forms. The instrument was his Encyclical Letter OF HUMAN LIFE, (or in Latin the first words of the letter... Humanae Vitae.) No other Church agreed with the Pope, and EVERY other Church, especially those that had no respect for Catholicism) CHANGED their stance on birth control and allowed it. This was only one of many ways that moral relativism creeped into Christianity. But not so in Catholic teaching. Yes, many Catholics embraced Protestantism in practice. But the Church as a teaching institution protected by the promise of Christ in the Gospels,  never caved.

In 1968 Protestants and secularists laughed and ridiculed the Pope for his prophecies of the natural consequences that would beleaguer the world if artificial birth control was allowed. In section 17 of Humane Vitae he wrote (and I'm paraphrasing):

1. The road to infidelity in marriage will be opened wide.
2. There will be a general lowering of public morality.
3. Men would finally lose respect for the woman... and use "her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected an beloved companion."

Then the second paragraph of that section (17.2) reads this way, 44 years ago:

"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power (contraception) passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.... Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife."
 
At the time theologians (even Catholic theologians), physicians, sociologists, and all manner of other experts advised the pope to loosen the strings of the Church's teachings on contraception. But the Pope, being protected by the Holy Spirit (Christ's explicit promise) from promulgating doctrine in error, wrote Humane Vitae, and once again the Holy Spirit protected the Church from teaching error. (Mt 16:18-19, John 16:12-13, John 20:22-23)

And this past week we see it fulfilled, yet again.

And it is the only Church that has never reversed any teaching from the time of the Apostles. If you think it has changed, then you don't know the teachings of the Church but have listened to the misrepresentations of others who would marginalize the Church for their personal gain. 

This is why so many of us are Catholic. We'd rather be members of a Church that has proven its infallibility by NOT changing moral teachings, (even under intense pressure to do so), than to become moral relativists, like the rest of christian culture.... even the Orthodox. Truth does not change. Natural Law does not change. Christ does not change.    What is true is NOT up to us to decide.

-----

* Ray Guarendi is right. There is a new atheism in the U.S. It comes from Christians who say, "There is a God. And he's just like me."

Santorum, Bella, and Natural Law

Ivan Strenski, a progressive blogger questioned (in a nice way), Rick and Karen's Santorum decision to get pregnant late in life and bring Bella into the world. The original article by Ivan is HERE.  The first comment to the post was by "hsmom" who called Ivan's thinking "erroneous at best... and illogical." Hsmom's comments were good. But I felt the need to go further.

Ivan was being honest. He didn't understand how Santorum's "legalistic" behavior to Catholic teaching was good, because it brought such "suffering" into Bella's life. Ivan's logic is typical of many in the world. The only reality they understand is the one they can see and feel right before them at the moment.

Here are my two responses:

Ivan. Please consider:

A. Catholicism's teachings are based on 5,000 years of observing human history and how human experiences reveal what works and doesn't in the universe, i.e. natural law. The Catholic assumption is that life and the universe of reality is ultimately ordered, sophisticated, and benevolently intelligent. Although we cannot know everything, what we do know must be followed if we are to live a life approaching happiness, purpose and meaning. The doctrine is not arbitrary but is the faith's best interpretation of what is true, universally, for all human beings, regardless of our state in life.  Or, what is good, true and beautiful.

B.  Thus, Santorum, like other well-informed Catholics (and few Catholics are well-informed about their faith), is not being "legalistic" to an arbitrary rule, but rather a trust in 5,000 years of wisdom acquired by Judea-Christian understanding about what works in the long run, not just what we see before our eyes (c.f. Bella Santorum). There's a direct analogy to standing on the edge of a cliff and deciding to believe in the effects of gravity. If you trust what experience and scientists tell you, you'll step back from the cliff. That is not legalism in the pejorative sense. But it is following a rule (legalistically) that ensures your greater security. That is what the Church attempts to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

C. The problem with human kind is something called "sin" or (to put it in less theological terms) the willful, knowledgeable disobedience of a law of nature. Natural law exists in the physical as well as the psychological realms. Sin is like stepping off that cliff when you've been told that doing so is going to hurt. When pride tells us that we're going to do what we want and screw the theologians and historians and scientists.... then we or others get hurt.

D. Your assumption is that YOU know what is better for Bella, Rick, and their world, than what God (or Providence, or Natural Law) has ordained to occur in their life. And your solution to what you perceive is Rick's problem (a sick child that "suffers") requires that Rick and his wife step off a cliff that they have been clearly warned will cause them harm in ways that you and they cannot conceive. Rick and his wife trust in the wisdom of the ages, not just what they see before their eyes. Rick and his wife understand that they don't understand everything, and what they see is not necessarily what is true when confronted with all of reality, if they could see and understand it. You comments assume that what you see is all there is to understand. But I don't think that intellectually you really believe that.

E. Lastly, we don't want the innocent to suffer. But because our pride-filled propensity to sin (e.g. ignoring natural law when we know better) suffering is a part of the moral world in which we live. Blame pride and ego. But God in his mercy and grace brings meaning out of that suffering, even by the innocent. Christ, innocent in all ways, suffered and died a cruel death for the salvation (in the eternal afterlife) for all of us. Just as a soldier gives his life for his comrades; a willful suffering for the benefit of others. We have no idea how huge Bella's suffering may be, nor do we have any idea how huge and meaningful her suffering is. But to enact one of your solutions would be to bring suffering of a sinful sort, and such disobedience is always like walking off that cliff saying," I am smarter than gravity." This is where we trust God for the short time we are on this earth. For there is eternity to face. This is but a training ground for what is beyond.

Second comment to Ivan:

Ivan,

Not to belabor this, but perhaps this, too, is worthy of your consideration: Your solution to Bella's implied suffering, is that the Santorums should have contracepted, or aborted. On the "contracepted" see my earlier post. But on the "aborted" you imply that killing Bella in the womb would be less "suffering" (and therefore a good) than letting her live and "suffer."  (My earlier post hoped to argue that "suffering" is not a bad thing, ,but there's more to the argument that suffering can be good. See below.)  By extension, if you believe Bella in the womb is a human being, you must also believe that killing a sick child is better than letting her live. And by extension, the same would apply to all adults who are suffering. Would you now care to define "suffering" in terms of when it should prompt suicide or murder? Trusting in the Church's teachings will save you from these sort of dilemmas.

Is suffering good or bad?  Suffering is the result of sin... a bad thing, even when that suffering occurs to a "good" person. The suffering may not be the result of the person's weakness or sin, but rather is the result of humankind's sinful, weak, and imperfect condition... that is, our propensity as a group to ignore what we know (or sometimes don't know) about the nature of reality. This understanding applies to tsunamis as well as adultery, although it may take longer to explain the former than the latter. )  The suffering of a person who has sinned (ignored natural law) should inform the person about what not to do next time if she wants to be happier. On the other hand, suffering by the "innocent" is a call to their lives to pray and offer up their lives as a lesson in helping others to care for others. Thus, Bella is put into the Santorum's life as an "object lesson" that will draw the Santorums and all of us who "watch" the Santorums, how to care for others. Humanity is about caring for others. The dependent around us (like Bella) fulfill a great purpose in teaching those of us who are not so dependent, to care for others. Thus, we the healthy and proud, can be brought low and humbled (in a good way), because others need us to care for them. As human beings we need to learn to care for others. Life is about relationships. Bella teaches us all these great lessons. And by extension, we just might learn that God looks on us as we look on Bella--from God's perspective, we (the "normal") are far from healthy and we need a great deal of help. We are dependent on God's grace, if not his forgiveness, then just to breath and live. For the complexity and sophistication and intelligent benevolence of nature sustains us.