No one should trivialize the current economic crisis, which poses a real threat to the well-being of people around the world. But “crisis” quickly moves from being an unpleasant fact that we must face to a poisonous climate of anxiety that we breathe. In order to maintain perspective, I’ve shut myself off from the unremitting commentary, speculation and polemic generated (especially in the blogosphere) and turned to the writings of Benedict XVI.

As far as I know, Benedict has not said much about our present troubles, but in The Yes Of Jesus Christ he suggests that the periods of intense panic that occasionally wash over us are symptoms of the godless modern worldview.

The essence of modernity is that man now pledges to rely only on his own resources. He will accept and trust only what he can control. Since he cannot live without some form of hope, he needs some assurance that his future will be good. Without a gracious, provident God to rely on, this assurance must take the form of fideistic belief in progress. Modern man must think that, in his own efforts to control his future, he is only cooperating with the god called History, whose divine plan is sure to culminate in utopia. Within this new religion, the theological virtue of “hope” consists in an ideological optimism to be maintained in defiance of any contrary evidence.

Of course trust in the immanent mechanisms of history is irrational. At moments of crisis like this, when it seems our god has failed, we sharply and suddenly lose our modern “hope.” Benedict writes:

Optimism is only the facade of a world without hope that is trying to hide from its own despair with this deceptive sham. This is the only explanation for the immoderate and irrational anxiety, this traumatic and violent fear that breaks out when some setback or accident in technological or economic development casts doubt on the dogma of progress.

Doubt is very much in the air. If, heaven forbid, things get much worse, we will see whether it is in God or in Western prosperity that we have really placed our trust.

As you already know, the current issue of First Things features a fascinating exchange between Bruce D. Porter and Gerald R. McDermott on whether Mormonism is Christian. Equally fascinating is this interview from the Zenit News Agency in which Mormon physician Dr. Joe Stanford describes the encyclical Humanae Vitae as a “prophetic statement”:

For a non-Catholic, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae is not important because it is the Church speaking, but rather because it offers a compelling argument, says Mormon physician Dr. Joe Stanford. . . .

“I first read Humanae Vitae in 1991 and several times since then. I think it is an inspired document. I think it captures fundamental aspects of human nature. He [Pope Paul VI] really hits the nail on the head regarding the dark side of contraception, sterilization, and abortion and their effects on society.”

Earlier this month, Anne Barbeau Gardiner wrote in her article “A Lesson in Deep Ecology”:

Deep ecologists reject anthropocentrism, according to which human beings have irreducible value because they are made in the image of God; instead they embrace ecocentrism, according to which “an endangered plant species . . . has a direct claim to moral attention” and “the culling of an overabundant mammalian species in the same ecosystem may not only be morally justifiable, but obligatory to the extent that it would serve the integrity of the biotic community.” That “overabundant” species might well be us, for deep ecologists go beyond animal advocacy and hope to resolve conflicts between man and animal with “no special consideration to the interests and lives of rational, sentient, verbal Homo sapiens.”

For those of us who were skeptical that such a theory could be taken seriously and put into practice, Ecuador has given us a concrete example. This Sunday, the country will vote on a constitutional referendum which would grant rights to nature. Here’s an excerpt from the proposal:

Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law . . . Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms.* The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution. [*The word "organisms" means government bodies and courts.]

Astonishingly, the L.A. Times can’t decide whether giving rights to plants might be problematic:

In some ways, this makes sense for a country whose cultural identity is almost indistinguishable from its regional geography–the Galapagos, the Amazon, the Sierra. How this new area of constitutional law will work, however, is another question. We aren’t ready to endorse such a step at home, or even abroad. But it’s intriguing. We’ll be watching Ecuador’s example.

(via Wesley Smith)

There has been much talk recently about the possible introduction of requirements that medical students learn to perform abortions and that Catholic hospitals administer the morning-after pill. And, as anyone in a medical profession knows, these are only a few of the times when a healthcare provider is asked–or compelled–to act against his conscience. Soon, such coercion and discrimination may be illegal.

A law professor and friend writes in with this plea:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced a rule that would protect the ability of healthcare providers to refuse participation in those things that they believe to be immoral, such as abortion, the morning-after pill, and other emergency contraception. It is important that all citizens who support such protection contact DHHS by Sept. 26 and express that support. The full announcement from DHHS is here, including the following instructions:

1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to www.Regulations.gov or via e-mail to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. To submit electronic comments to www.Regulations.gov, go to the Web site and click on the link “Comment or Submission” and enter the keywords “provider conscience”. (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.)

2. By regular, express, or overnight mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Brenda Destro, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 728E, Washington, DC, 20201.

3. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to the following address: Room 728E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201.

Please write to HHS today, and ask your prolife contacts to do so as well.