Ads


Catholic Charity in Secular America

I would like to offer three reflections that focus on the “Catholic” identity of Catholic Charities and, by extension, the identity of all Catholic social work.

First: What we do becomes who we are. A man who does good usually becomes good—or at least better than he was. A man who struggles with his fear and overcomes it and shows courage gradually becomes brave. And a man who steals from his friends or cheats his company, even in little things, eventually becomes a thief. He may start as a good man with some unhappy appetites and alibis, but unless he repents and changes, the sins become the man. The habit of stealing, or lying, or cowardice, or adultery, reshapes him into a different creature.

What applies to individuals can apply just as easily to institutions and organizations. The more that Catholic universities or hospitals mute their religious identity, the more that Catholic social ministries weaken their religious character, the less “Catholic” they are, the less useful to the Gospel they become.

Second: The individual is sacred but not sovereign. For Catholics, every human person—no matter how disabled, poor, or flawed—has a unique, inviolable dignity. Sanctity of life and the basic rights that go with it begin at conception and continue through natural death.

But civil society consists not just of autonomous individuals. It also consists of communities, which have rights of their own. Catholic institutions are extensions of the Catholic community and Catholic belief. The state has no right to interfere with their legitimate work, even when it claims to act in the name of individuals unhappy with Catholic teaching. The individual’s right to resent the Church or reject her beliefs does not trump the rights of the Catholic community to believe and live according to its faith.

To put it another way, Catholic ministries have the duty to faithfully embody Catholic beliefs about marriage, the family, social justice, sexuality, abortion and other important issues. And if the state forbids those Catholic ministries to be faithful in their services through legal or financial bullying, then as a matter of integrity they should end their services.

The third point gives context to the other two: A new kind of America is emerging in the early 21st century, and it’s likely to be much less friendly to religious faith than anything in the nation’s past. That has implications for every aspect of Catholic social ministry.

Early America could afford to be “secular” in the best sense, precisely because its people were overwhelmingly religious. The Founders saw religious faith as something separate from government but vital to the nation’s survival. In the eyes of Adams, Washington and most of the other Founders, religion created virtuous citizens. And only virtuous citizens could sustain a country as delicately balanced in its institutions, moral instincts and laws as the United States.

As a result, for nearly two centuries, Christian thought, vocabulary, and practice were the unofficial but implicit soul to every aspect of American life—including the public square. The great Jesuit scholar John Courtney Murray put it this way: “The American Bill of Rights is not a piece of 18th-century rationalist theory; it is far more the product of Christian history. Behind it one can see, not the philosophy of the Enlightenment, but the older philosophy that had been the matrix of the common law. The ‘man’ whose rights are guaranteed in the face of law and government is, whether he knows it or not, the Christian man, who had learned to know his own dignity in the school of Christian faith.”

The trouble is that America’s religious soul—its Christian subtext—has been weakening for decades. We are watching the end of a very old social compact in American life: the mutual respect of civil and sacred authority, and the mutual autonomy of religion and state. And that’s dangerous.

American life has always had a deep streak of unhealthy individualism, rooted not just in the Enlightenment, but also in Reformation theology. In practice, religion has always moderated that individualism. It has given the country a social conscience and a common moral compass.

Religion has also played another key role. Individuals, on their own, have very little power in dealing with the state. But communities, and especially religious communities, have a great deal of power in shaping attitudes and behavior. Churches are one of the mediating institutions, along with voluntary associations, fraternal organizations, and especially the family, that stand between the power of the state and the weakness of individuals. They’re crucial to the “ecology” of American life as we have traditionally understood it.

And that’s why, if you dislike religion or resent the Catholic Church, or just want to reshape American life into some new kind of experiment, you need to use the state to break the influence of the Church and her ministries.

In the years ahead, we’re going to see more and more attempts by civil authority to interfere in the life of believing communities. We’ll also see less and less unchallenged space for religious institutions to carry out their work in the public square. It’s already happening with Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies, and even in the hiring practices of organizations like Catholic Charities. Right now no one in Catholic social work can afford to be lukewarm about his faith or naive about the environment we now face—at least, if we want Catholic social work to remain Catholic.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M., was recently named Archbishop of Philadelphia. This essay has been adapted from a talk he gave to the Catholic Social Workers National Association in June.

RESOURCES

Charles J. Chaput, A Principled Charity

Charles J. Chaput, A Charitable Endeavor

Matthew J. Franck, Religion, Reason and Same-Sex Marriage

Matthew Hanley, Should Catholic Charities Settle for Harm Reduction?

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

7.19.2011 | 12:33pm
But what IS "the" Catholic position on various social issues?

And/or, who is final authority, in the Catholic magisterium, regarding such things as: which are the most important social issues; health care or abortion and marriage?

In the past, Chaput suggests abortion trumps all. But against Chaput, various cardinals (Bernardian? SP?) suggested otherwise; referring to the "seamless garment" of the fuller spectrum of social needs.

And what for example, is the best position regarding marriage, say? At times, Chaput and other "conservatives" suggest that conventional marriage is the best vocation; other times, noting another, better "marriage" of the Church - and priests and others - with God. The marriage of the Lamb, etc.. Traditionally, the priesthood followed Paul, suggesting it is "better not to marry," but to become a priest instead.

Is Chaput himself an authority? He seems at odds with most of the rest of the Catholic magisterium. But he is very, very much in tune with the political right.
7.19.2011 | 1:07pm
Gail Finke says:
Dr. Vendermann: I might as easily say that Cardinal Bernadine's views were "very, very much in tune with the political left." Chaput and Bernadine are different examples of ways men applied Catholic Social Teaching to their time period and locale, something we can all argue about forever. Catholic Social Teaching, as I'm sure you must know, provides principles we must put in practice, not concrete political stances. There is no party in America, or anywhere else, that embodies "one correct Catholic" stance on anything.

It is easier than you posit to tell what position on various social issues is or isn't "Catholic." But the Catholic Church is not a political party, and the Magisterium works in a more general, broad, and universal way than to dictate laws to everyone in every country. This is nothing new.
7.19.2011 | 2:19pm
@Dr Vendermann: I think you find a contradiction where there is none. If a human is not allowed to exist, then he can have no "fuller spectrum of social needs". Now maybe I'm mistaken, but I've always understood Cardinal Bernardin's "Seamless Garment" as including pro-life, i.e. an opposition to abortion. I always heard him as saying, "Let's not stop with just pro-life". I've always been puzzled by those who thought he was saying, "Being Pro-Choice is okay as other things might be more important".
7.19.2011 | 3:08pm
burton says:
Dr. Vendermann,

If you want to know what the Catholic teaching is on abortion and marriage - go look it up in the Catechism - I think you will will find the answers to be quite clear, unless you are prone to the modern relativistic tendency of purposeful obfuscation. I find that those who are most quick to divide the Church into "conservative" and "liberal" or "right" and "left" are those who would seek to blur the lines between orthodoxy and heresy, between obedience to the truth and dissent from it.
7.19.2011 | 3:43pm
R Hampton says:
Now let's try this on for size:

...The state has no right to interfere with their legitimate work, even when it claims to act in the name of individuals unhappy with Islamic teaching. The individual’s right to resent the Mosque or reject her beliefs does not trump the rights of the Muslim community to believe and live according to its faith.

To put it another way, Muslims have the duty to faithfully embody Sharia Law about marriage, the family, social justice, sexuality, abortion and other important issues. And if the state forbids those Muslims to be faithful in their services through legal or financial bullying, then as a matter of integrity Muslims should end their practice of Sharia Law.

...or this...

.....The state has no right to interfere with their legitimate work, even when it claims to act in the name of individuals unhappy with Amish Mennonite teaching. The individual’s right to resent the Mennonite church or reject her beliefs does not trump the rights of the Amish community to believe and live according to its faith.

To put it another way, Amish communities ministries have the duty to faithfully embody Mennonite beliefs about marriage, the family, social justice, sexuality, abortion and other important issues. And if the state forbids the Amish to be faithful in their services through legal or financial bullying, then as a matter of integrity the Amish should leave their communities.

How does that comparison work for you?

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said July 18 in response to presidential candidate Herman Cain's support for a local ban on the building of a Muslim mosque:

"Muslims have a right to have places of worship. ... Shariah law is unconstitutional. Shariah law violates the First Amendment, which guarantees separation of church and state and guarantees separation of mosque and state. Secondly, it violates the clauses that protect equal rights, because under Shariah law women do not have equal rights."
7.19.2011 | 4:03pm
Archbishop Chaput incarnates the solution to the Church's leadership crisis in the United States. If his boldness were the norm, the Church's position in relation to the State would be far more advantageous for the Church and the Faithful. God willing, he will be the next President of the USCCB. Were he the President now, he would not have failed us in New York. Shepherds like him are the future of the Catholic Church, if it is to have a future in this country.
7.19.2011 | 4:12pm
Sophia Mason says:
My understanding of Cardinal Bernardine’s “seamless garment” philosophy was that it presented abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and social and economic injustice as ALL being things we should all try to put an end to. Fair ’nuff. An emphasis on abortion, however, seems eminently reasonable, because in the case of abortion

(1) the injustice is most severe (deprivation of life at its inception, and not of some lesser good)

(2) the victim is always innocent

(3) the Church’s condemnation is explicit, consistent, and absolute (not true in the case of capital punishment, which JPII (for example) has said is permissible under certain (rarely met) circumstances)

(4) the remedy is clear (which is not the case with regard to social and economic injustices)

A “seamless garment” philosophy only makes sense if we acknowledge that (to stretch the metaphor) some parts of the garment are more important than others. Which makes sense, when you think about clothing covering things . . .
7.19.2011 | 4:14pm
"In the past, Chaput suggests abortion trumps all."

So did the current Pope and his soon to be saint predecessor.
7.19.2011 | 4:26pm
Steve M says:
Those comparisons don't work. They are red herrings. ABp. Chaput recommended discontinuing charitable works that by infection with secularism contradict Catholicism. He didn't say one had to quit being Catholic or leave the city/community in which the charitable works were performed.

Furthermore, the First Amendment does not "guarantee" separation of church and state, nor equality. If it had women wouldn't have needed suffrage and their wouldn't be a state named Maryland where Catholics were welcome in opposition to say Massachusetts. Guess Mr. Land may be an ethicist, but not an historian nor linguist.
7.19.2011 | 4:49pm
R Hampton says:
Steve M,
Does that mean you believe Sharia Law is in fact Constitutional? If not, then why?
7.19.2011 | 8:51pm
Steve M says:
R Hampton,
Not sure I'm qualified to answer, but I'd say neither Canon Law nor Sharia are Constitutional. They are in cases stricter to only those who subscribe to them, but neither system has temporal enforcement value relying on the nation-state for enforcement. I can be "levied" a penance, and if I subscribe to Catholicism, I will perform it, but said penance cannot be enforced. The penalty is to my soul only if I refuse. The only temporal "enforcement" is excommunication or denial of the sacraments. Perhaps the secular nation-state will enter this fray, also?

My understanding of Islam is slight, but I believe some Sharia Law penalties, such as stoning, would be against secular law. No such problem with one decade of the Rosary. So, while neither is Constitutional, adherents of Canon Law tend to have a greater "fit" with the Constitution.

The Constitution and secular law enforces many things considered wrong by Christianity and Sharia. And in the past, punished for many other things the laws presently do not (e.g. sodomy, adultery, etc.). US Secular society, not just law, used to, if only by negative bias, punish poor behavior. Much has changed in our law and to some extent, citizens are allowed to slowly create secular law by societal values. Unfortunately, we don't create God's laws. We break these laws not at peril to the temporal, but the eternal. ABp. Chaput points out that religious values aren't as much of present societal values as they were in the past. This affects law, hence First Things mission to keep religion in the Public Square.
7.19.2011 | 9:04pm
Dr. Vendermann,

While you may disagree with Archbishop Chaput's views on a political basis, you may NOT insult him by referring to him by his last name only. I find this a shameful lack of respect, a respect which every respondent to your views has carefully avoided.

I would think an apology is in order.
7.19.2011 | 10:32pm
Matt says:
A hearty congratulations to the new Archbishop of Philadelphia, and grateful thanks for another excellent FT contribution!

I do not understand how one can equate the social services that the Catholic Church offers voluntarily as an extension of its mission with Sharia Law. Although U.S. Supreme Court might find much of the latter "unconstitutional", as it may with many tenets of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, the U.S. Constitution, in my humble opinion, and in the opinion of many referendum voters in recent elections (in contrast, to be sure, with the views of many judges and state legislators), does allow Catholics, Muslims, Mennonites, Mormons, and those of every religion to follow their "duty to faithfully embody [their] beliefs about marriage, the family, social justice, sexuality, abortion and other important issues." Call me a naive optimist, but I really don’t see how the U.S. Supreme Court could disagree.
7.19.2011 | 11:22pm
R Hampton says:
Steve M,

Good, I think you understand my point. Within our Constitutional framework, abiding by the Catholic Catechism is a moral decision that must be voluntary -- it can not (nor should it be) be enacted as law upon a secular society.

Of course this principle remains true regardless of the organization/religion (hence the example of Muslim and Amish communities). Thus the KKK and the Catholic Church may internally discriminate in almost anyway imaginable, but neither group may employ said discriminatory practices externally. So the Catholic Church has the right to excommunicate (or otherwise punish) a divorced Catholic, they do not have the right to punish a non-Catholic for the same offense.

To put it in terms familiar to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.; "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"
7.19.2011 | 11:39pm
Dr. Disaster says:
Good Dr. Vendermann, it is as another here has said: you have committed a grave fallacy, known as the fallacy of false dichotomy. You have seen contradiction where there is only slight variations of belief that don't at all come into the equation.

R Hampton, I do not quite understand if you are claiming what Mr. Land said, but I find I must point out that the first Amendment guarantees that a State shall not establish a faith. It does not guarantee that it shall entirely be separated, and hence, Mr. Land has committed a common, yet very grave, misunderstanding. Christianity is largely tolerated by the State, in America, for reasons listed here, that the State has largely been composed of people sympathetic to Christianity, as Christianity was the original arbiter of what a secular state should embody. Islam has had relatively little influence, and also exhibits incredible imperialistic and militaristic tendencies. Muhammad himself was prophet by a sword, and it was said of him at the time that he was a deceiver because no true prophet should need to convert with a sword, but only with the truth, if any, of his words.

Steve M, Maryland was a land where Catholics could find refuge long before the Constitution. You are, however, quite correct in your conclusions, that neither equality nor "separation of Church and state" are protected by the Constitution.



In support of my arguments:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
These words do not appear in this text, which is the exact text, as far as I know, of the first amendment: "Separation," "Church," or "State." There is no mention of a barrier between the two, or a claim to guarantee that any Church shall not tamper with the government. Indeed, the last clause guarantees that any Church can attempt to bully the government at will. This is incredibly contrary to the modern day view that the Church has no business where the government has business. I am sure most of you are aware of this fact, but I find it would avoid a great deal of debate to clarify this issue.
7.20.2011 | 12:03am
R Hampton says:
Dr. Disaster,

The protection of religious freedom as enshrined in the Constitution is due primarly to Thomas Jefferson (A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1779) and James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785). [Search "Rights of Conscience" to learn more]. Separation of Church and State was necessary to prevent majorities form interfering with the individual's religious liberty:

Madison began as a doubter, writing Jefferson that while ‘‘[m]y own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights,’’ still ‘‘I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment . . His reasons were four . . .

(2) There was reason ‘‘to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.’’

(4) ‘‘[E]xperience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. . . . Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. . . . Wherever there is a interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince

THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 319 (G. Hunt ed. 1904)
7.20.2011 | 12:28am
kenneth says:
There's no grand conspiracy to use the state to break the church or churches in general. It's a wonderful fear tactic used by an industry which thrives on selling fear, but it has no basis in reality. The Catholic Church is increasingly tightening its orthodoxy and brand identity, making it clear what it stands for and what it does not. A growing number of us have decided we're not interested in what they're selling. That's not a conspiracy. That's freedom of conscience. The bishop is crying "persecution" because the state is not showing the medieval deference to the Church that it once did. It now has the temerity to act in accordance with its people's wishes and its own legal customs and not directives from Rome. That's not a move to break the church at all. It's stating, quite correctly, that the church and its followers under our system of government have the same share in the civic space and the law as anyone else. No less, and no more.
7.20.2011 | 3:18am
@Dr. Vendermann: You are a Dr, at least according to the title you claim. Use your reason and logic. Without the right to life, no other right really matters. Dead men do not need health care, housing, or food, and they do not have worries about whether or not a war is just.
7.20.2011 | 8:45am
Joe DeVet says:
The name of the late Cardinal, Archbishop of Chicago, is spelled "Bernardin." I'll take him at his own word that he did not mean the "seamless garment" argument which he initiated to imply that abortion was no more important an issue than economic inequality (or other relative justice issues.) However, in my opinion the "seamless garment" argument was a mistake because of what others made of it--i.e., the idea that if one was pro-abortion "rights" and pro-welfare state, his position was as justified as one who was anti-abortion and anti-welfare state. The end result of "seamless garment" was to give moral cover to Catholic politicians and voters who vote pro-abortion.

As for any dichotomy between Abp Chaput's teaching and that of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, there is none whatever. As others have noted, one can easily find the real teachings of the latter if one is willing to read, and especially if one is disposed to read the plain meaning of what is printed. Alas, that last stipulation is often beyond the capability of even certain "Catholic" theologians, which is why Catholic teaching may be confusing to some who do not read.

BTW, if you take the trouble to read the Catechism, or the various encyclicals, or even the documents of Vatican II, you will find no conflict with Abp Chaput's public pronouncements. (If you do read Vatican II, you will be surprised--much of what is attributed to that fateful event is a false interpretation--as has been pointed out by Bl John Paul II and by his successor.
7.20.2011 | 9:43am
Patrick says:
@Kenneth...

So you are fine if a law is passed or court ruling handed down forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortions? Or one that compells catholic adoption service to place children with gay couples? It's ok with you if the state requires catholic school to hand out condoms? It's acceptable in your mind of the equal protection clause is used to impose gay marriage on the catholic church?

Each one of these notions has been advocated by activists in the past few years. In some cases, catholic services have been abandoned in order to protect religious integrity. And in those cases, sadly, the communities previously served by these religious institutions are suffering as a result.

Where is your support for freedom of conscience among catholic workers and institutions? What do we do when these institutions are forced to close? Move the services to the state and raise taxes to fund them?
7.20.2011 | 9:43am
Patrick says:
@Kenneth...

So you are fine if a law is passed or court ruling handed down forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortions? Or one that compells catholic adoption service to place children with gay couples? It's ok with you if the state requires catholic school to hand out condoms? It's acceptable in your mind of the equal protection clause is used to impose gay marriage on the catholic church?

Each one of these notions has been advocated by activists in the past few years. In some cases, catholic services have been abandoned in order to protect religious integrity. And in those cases, sadly, the communities previously served by these religious institutions are suffering as a result.

Where is your support for freedom of conscience among catholic workers and institutions? What do we do when these institutions are forced to close? Move the services to the state and raise taxes to fund them?
7.20.2011 | 10:58am
Albert says:
Well said, Cardinal Chaput.
7.20.2011 | 11:17am
Steve M says:
Hi Kenneth,

I hate to be disagreeable, but while there may be no grand conspiracy, there is definitely an effort for the nation-state to become ever more the complete power and influence among the people. This is where the 1st Amendment comes in -- in limiting the government's power. As government has increasingly acquired more power (selective service, vaccination, truancy, entitlements/charity, ad nauseum) the word charity has even changed in definition and connotation. While the 1st Amendment states the US will not establish a religion, the US government is slowly acting more and more like a religion -- and with enforcement powers!!
7.20.2011 | 1:21pm
kenneth says:
Patrick, I have yet to see anyone articulate a rational basis in evidence that suggests that Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions. As to the gay adoption issue, the Church is not being forced to do anything. Adoption is not a core action of religious free expression. It is a state-regulated activity. The Church has the right to say "we won't participate in gay adoption." They do not have the right to hold a government job/contract and then to ignore the laws of the land and get paid tax dollars for doing so. That sort of sense of entitlement has NEVER been part of any reasoned understanding of religious freedom.

The First Amendment gives you the right to believe as you will and to carry out worship and to govern yourself internally by your own ecclesiastical rules for membership, sacraments etc. It even gives you some special protections from the threat of overburdensome zoning laws etc. It does not give you (or me) a blanket exemption to any law that clashes with your conscience. It also does not allow for any activity (ie adoption) that a church involves itself with to be magically converted to a free expression activity immune to other laws.
7.20.2011 | 1:21pm
On the one hand, Gail assures us that the Magisterium is flexible and open to many readings. But then? Countless others here assure us that no reading but their own, is possible. Particularly with regard to abortion.

So what IS the right answer? What IS the Catholic position?

There are many different statements within the Magisterium on Abortion, for example. Note that our present Pope for example, said that we can vote for pro-abortion political candidates, given "proportionate" issues. Clearly leaving it to us to determine which were proportionate and which were not. It is only conservatives that have stepped in, to assure us that the Pope's 2004 statement, can only mean one thing: what they tell us it means. Totally ignoring many parts of the Magisterium, that say something different than what we heard on "Conservative" "Catholic" radio/TV, EWTN/RN.

For example? Read more closely, we find that the Catechism and so forth, say that abortion is bad. But it does not ever say that it is worse than any number of other sins.

Or as countless Bishops and Cardinals and Popes have said, other "issues" more worthy of our consideration in the voting booth.

Conservatives like to think that their construction of the Bible, the Magisterium, is "The" only one. But look again. The Church in fact, is not Liberal - or conservative either. Its positions support both interpretations.

And therefore? The imposition of a "Conservative" Catholicism on American Law? Would indeed simply amount to an extremist religious sect, imposing its own "Sharia" Law, on us all. Ending religious freedom in America.
7.20.2011 | 1:43pm
Hamlet says:
Yes Steve M.,

And what is that new reliogen that American is evolving into? If we define reliogen as Creed, Code and Cult (Peter Kreeft), then we have to define the new reliogen in these terms. Mother Earth is its God, Envoromentallsim combined with Socialism is its Code, and I am not sure its Worship Servie - one event would be Earth Day.
7.20.2011 | 1:57pm
Michael PS says:
“No establishment,” would seem to have four components

(1) first of all, it lays down a prohibition, which translates into a limitation on religious freedom – something that confirms the negative character of the notion, since any limitation is a negation; (2) this prohibition, although addressed to Congress, concerns private individuals and, more precisely, their relations with ‘public authorities’ – a very broad phrase that encompasses the state, territorial authorities, public administration, and public services; (3) this prohibition concerns the religious beliefs of individuals, not in order to restrict them, but in order to exclude their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities; (4) finally, this prohibition aims to oblige individuals to respect common rules in these relations from which they cannot exempt themselves for religious reasons – which comes down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs.
7.20.2011 | 2:02pm
kenneth says:
Steve, the nation state has been growing in power and influence since the high middle ages. In our own country, the power of the federal government has been growing steadily since the Civil War, and by leaps and bounds since WW II, as we have been on a permanent war footing since then. The First Amendment is one check to that power, as is the Fourth and others, but the best bulwark remains unused to a large degree: the vote and informed civic engagement. The government has not "taken" power. We have foolishly ceded it by electing people who promise us imperial world domination, a gargantuan prison industry and the manufactured fear of terrorism coupled with the fantasy of a fortress state. With all those problems, I'm still not sure your state-as-religion analogy holds. I see no enforcement of orthodoxy or even of lip service to the state or its leaders. We openly ridicule our leadership all the time. There is no enforced veneration of a "glorious leader" as there is in North Korea. You're perfectly free to burn our nation's flag, and people do so from time to time.
7.20.2011 | 2:43pm
Patrick says:
Kenneth, abortions are not being forced in catholic hospitals... yet. But the issue is rising: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122206219.html

The point is, 20 years ago, people would scoffed at the very suggestion that gay marriage could become law, yet today it is legal in several states - and growing. I don't oppose civil unions, but for our society to establish legal gay 'marriage' is to begin sliding down a slippery slope that ends with the question: what gives the church the right to discriminate against gay catholic couples who want to get married?

I'm sure you can offer an answer that works today. But will it work 20 years from now?
7.20.2011 | 3:41pm
kenneth says:
If there's a "new religion" in popular culture these days, it's materialism. The fears about environmentalism as a new creed are way overblown. Earth Day is a nice little thing schools use to harp on kids about recycling etc. but it's hardly a religion. I'm a practicing pagan so I know what nature-based religion is all about. We don't do anything special on Earth Day. There is also no government move afoot to compel or even encourage the establishment of our religion or anything like it on the general populace. In fact, we are still fighting the government at various levels in courts for our basic rights and recognition. Nor do I buy that socialism is the new order either. We are the most anti-socialist country in the West, bar none. True socialism has not been an operative force in the world for 20 years now, and it hasn't had any serious intellectual capital for longer than that.
7.20.2011 | 4:25pm
kenneth says:
Ten years before I was born, people would have scoffed at the very suggestion that interracial marriage could become law. A century before that, it was inconceivable that women would be allowed to vote. Times change, and ultimately for the better.

Change is always a risk, but a manageable one. As to the catholic hospital/abortion issue, it has nothing to do with forcing them to offer elective abortions. It's about whether doctrine can be interpreted and enforced so severely as to sentence a woman to death in an emergency situation. Nobody is saying that Catholic hospitals should have to offer abortion as a matter of course. If, on the other hand, the Church makes itself the only game in town, there may be limits as to how you should be able to enforce that doctrine on someone who may not even be Catholic and whose life or well being hangs in the balance.

Is it possible some wild eyed radical will try to overplay the issue and force elective abortion mandates or force the Church to marry gays within its own walls? Sure it is. I personally know a man who lost his law license for insanity and fought his own case before the law commission. He filed all sorts of odd and frivolous motions. Once demanded that he be allowed to smoke marijuana during the proceedings. Anyone can sue/seek anything. Doesn't mean they will.

Our courts are, by and large, not staffed by fools. Over the long haul, our system has a lot of self-correction and balancing mechanisms. Just as the arc of history bends toward justice, it also bends toward reasonableness. People feared the Americans With Disabilities Act would lead to all sorts of slippery slope abuses - guys collecting checks on the basis that simple laziness made them "disabled." Well, it didn't happen. Judges (mostly) are not fools, and the ones that are get overruled by the others sooner or later. People HAVE tried to use the courts to force outcomes with internal church matters - matters of ecclesial discipline etc. The courts have very clearly said "no dice, that's not our bailiwick, at all."

Is that an ironclad guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen? No. I can't give you that for anything. I can't guarantee that gravity won't suddenly change direction this afternoon or that the sun won't go supernova. I can give you reasonable assurances based on precedent that they won't. In science, as in public policy, we have to work on the reasonable assumptions and not our wildest fears or flights of fancy.
7.21.2011 | 12:14am
edmond says:
The Catholic Church realkly doen't need government to continue. In many parts of the world the Catholic Church has been oppresed and repressed with many missionaries killed, and yet today the church congregations still increase in these parts. It is in the developed world where the people give up the church because their bellies are full and their minds reject God as a mere idea.
7.21.2011 | 3:19pm
Burton says:
Dr. Vendermann,

Would you agree that the Church defines abortion as the murder of an innocent unborn child? Which other issues would you see as proportionate?

It is not as though other issues are not important, but you must admit that some in the Church have used the "proportionate" language as cover to actively support the "pro-choice" and pro-gay marriage agenda - this is what I mean by purposeful obfuscation and dissension.
7.23.2011 | 11:47am
Ruth Joy says:
R. Hampton- George Mason and other Anti-Federalists are the reason we have the Bill of Rights--- Madison was opposed to it. And there is nothing of major significance in the work of Madison and Jefferson that wasn't already included in Mason's acclaimed 1776 draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

You seem to accept the idea that Madison "began as a doubter," but he began as a student of John Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) where religion was considered to be essential to republican theory.
8.7.2011 | 1:36am
Devora Huso says:
(3) the Churchs condemnation is explicit, consistent, and absolute (not true in the case of capital punishment, which JPII (for example) has said is permissible under certain (rarely met) circumstances) My understanding of Cardinal Bernardines seamless garment philosophy was that it presented abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and social and economic injustice as ALL being things we should all try to put an end to. Fair nuff. An emphasis on abortion, however, seems eminently reasonable, because in the case of abortion
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact