Everything that rises must converge.
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Since November, the 2012 election campaigns have become overcrowded with ideas and narratives, some silly, some frankly false and some fractured, leaking lofty nuance like helium. Distractions pay huge dividends, right now.
The silly ideas are the ones accompanied by odd hysterics from what Jimmy Breslin used to call “the official women.” Nancy Pelosi has declared that the loyal opposition is intent on watching women as they lay dying on the floor in pools of blood and Dahlia Lithwick suggests that the villains want to first see those women raped by machinery.
The frankly false ideas are being served up by the mainstream media and others who evidently believe women are staggeringly stupid. The GOP, they maintain, is after their ladyparts, and colluding with Christians who suddenly wish to outlaw contraception.
This astonishing falsehood which first emerged at a GOP debate where moderator George Stephanopoulos—seemingly out of the blue—queried Mitt Romney on the idea of states banning contraception. “Who is even talking about that?” wondered a puzzled Romney.
It turns out the administration was. This lie is another distraction, and an exceedingly cynical one. Prior to that debate no one was even thinking about contraception bans as a public issue; even now, the only people actually doing so are assorted Democrat operatives and their allies in the media. Time will tell whether American women are as stupid and susceptible to baseless fearmongering as the Democrats clearly believe them to be.
This brings us to what is fractured, which would be the previously sound relationship between the U.S. Government and religious entities that—for the past 230 years—have been considered efficient and helpful co-deliverers of social services beneficial to the public good, but are suddenly become public hindrances. On January 31, the administration amended the policies of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: those working for church-related schools, or charities are no longer eligible. An administration-supporting associate informs me that the move “was showing sensitivity to the establishment clause.” As a similar explanation seems to lay behind the administrations refusal to allow the USCCB’s continued assistance in providing aid to victims of human trafficking, I suspect such “sensitivities” will soon render ineligible for federal loans those students attending church-related schools. One wonders if such a hyper “sensitivity” will eventually find religious interests ineligible to parade (or protest) on public streets.
This is of a piece with the administration’s unprecedented assault on First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof, a move calculated, some believe, to eventually push the churches out of the public arena altogether and redefine freedom of religion as mere freedom of worship. That notion seems a great deal less paranoid than it did, even a week ago as, at a recent congressional hearing, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro appeared to suggest that religious liberty doesn’t extend beyond the right to worship.
Recently, I asked a friend why he supports the administration’s “accommodated” mandate; he responded that the administration has now promised an eventual adjustment that will move the participation of the churches from a direct to indirect co-operation with evil, a theological subtlety that is already being debated. Catholics advocating the point are willing to overlook the elephant in the room: that the administration’s face-saving theological “nuance” still permits the subversion of the First Amendment, and the intrusion of the state into the conscience of the church.
Through its mouthpieces, the administration has already begun to argue that “an institution does not have a conscience.” This is utter nonsense. The missions of the church are predicated on conscience, and conscience and mission feed and build upon one another. Conscience is what sent Catholic religious women to drag Civil War soldiers off the battlefields and into their hospitals, regardless of uniform; it is what put Catholic charities and hospitals and schools in place often before civil authorities thought to intervene; it is why the Vatican provides funding for adult stem cell research.
Institutional conscience is behind our government sending billions of dollars to Africa, to combat death by AIDS and malaria. Indeed, President Obama himself cannot deny the truth of it; he recently suggested that conscience is what animates his institutional policies.
Here is another truth: everything that rises must converge. Fractured ideology and theology are now rising and converging, and whether they raise our discourse or further divide will depend upon our ability to articulate and absorb sometimes subtle arguments without allowing our attention to be diverted from the central matter at hand: does the government have any business inserting itself into our religious conscience with the intention of commanding it? Should its reach extend into our theological musings as a means of effecting our eventual, and unsubtle marginalization?
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Geithner to Congress
Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline
Pelosi and women "dying on the floor"
Dahlia Lithwick "Raped by Machines"
Stephanopoulos' out of the blue interest in banning contraception
Obama administration disqualifies church-employed from loan forgiveness
HHS denys USCCB spot in Human Trafficking Assistance
Marginalizing the Churches
Moral Theologians Debate Co-operation with Evil
Catholic Sisters and the Civil War
Comments:
There is a far more straightforward argument we should be making. That is that Obama has stepped out of the "Free Exercise violation frying pan" into the "Establishment Clause violation fire" when he orders the insurance companies to pay the Church employer's costs because he cannot force the Church to do so. Any law or presidential diktat requiring a private person to support a church institution on account of its beliefs (as in "we believe contraception is wrong and therefore won't pay for contraceptive services") is the clearest violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. See Everson, 330 US at 15. Once the infirmity of the "accommodation" is shown, the discussion should be back to the Religious Liberty issue this matter truly entails.
If a restaurant somewhere featured a vomitorium so that people could eat without stopping then a given person has a right to go there. It does not follow that the state should force all restaurants to maintain vomitoriums. And it certainly does not follow that vomitoriums should be a health necessity simply because they do in fact help to keep those who eat to much from getting indigestion.
He never said we should hand our consciences over to him, or worship him as god or allow him to dictate our faith to us.
Did God also never tell us to "obey the authorities"?
Did Jeus never show any tolerance, even for the Pharisees? As when he told us to obey their words?
Who's "worshipping" Obama? Not even Democrats.
Deeper down, the Bible was urging us to make our peace even with other religions it seems. Jesus said he had come only to the "People of Israel"; but finally he was allowed to suggest some mercy, grace, for "Samaritans" too. While Paul added, Greeks.
To do that? Jesus had to drop/compromise with, a few Old Testament rules. Like the Jewish rule requiring physical circumcision.
Of course no one should entirely hand over their conscience to the state; and yet hundreds of smaller compromises have been made, historically.
Even? By Jesus himself, in a sense.
The Roman emperors were very desirous that all their subjects take a lot of notice of them. Someone who was really urging obedience to them wouldn't speak of them as casually as this. "Don't you know that Caesar is Jupiter incarnate? The personifcation of Rome? Of course you must obey him!" Christ's words here sound dismissive of their power, rather than, "Oh, gosh wow yes! You need to obey Caesar! And the Roman religon is just peachy-keen dandy!"
Circumcision, by the way, was dropped by the later Christians, since more and more gentiles were joining the Christian faith, and it was a serious, and painful, operation for adult males, back then. Jesus Himself never forbade it.
Before the time of Christ, the Maccabees rose up against their Hellenic overlords, and drove them out, when they forbade circumcision of male infants, and made other laws, trying to force them to become more like Greeks, and less like Jews. Jesus, never condemns the Maccabees for this, nor does He tell any of His followers to go ahead and worship Caesar-as-Jupiter, or join in the Bacchanalian revels of Dionysius, 'cuz it's really okay; if He'd really wanted to make peace with other religions, He would have said something like that. Heck, He might have thrown in some nice words about Buddhists, or Hindus. He did not.
Later, countless numbers of Christians were martyred under the Roman emperors, for not obeying the authorities, and putting just a pinch of incense on the emperor's altar. Apparently, they didn't get the message that Jesus really preached submission to the state, and tolerance for all religions.
Any civil authority that tells its subjects what they must believe, and tries to overrule their conscience, and their religion, is setting themselves up as an authority to be obeyed and deferred to, over and above God Himself---whether or not they're demanding actual worship at that point or not. The Caesars began as generals, warlords, taking over Roman state. But they quickly moved on to claim divinity for themselves as well.
I remember Nancy Pelosi saying that we'd have to pass the Healthcare bill to find out what's in it. Well, we're finding out alright. . .
In the second place most of the Jewish rules supposedly "dropped" are ones later Rabbis also agreed are not binding on goyim.
In the third place, Catholics, rightly or wrongly, believe contraception to be a form of fornication laws against that were never "dropped" or limited to Jews.
In the fourth place "Thou shalt not steal" was never "dropped".
In the fifth place, what business has the state to sponsor the sexual pleasures of people, let alone tell others to indirectly? Why not just have tax-sponsored harems like ancient monarchs?
As far as the "accommodation" goes -- why is no one saying that it is extremely bizarre for the President to say, "OK, we can't make religious entities pay for this -- so I willl simply decree that insurance companies give it away and forbid them from charging for it"? HUH? Where does the president of the United States get THAT ability? If he can say that, then he can order anyone to pay for anything. Why is no one raising Hell about that?
You suggest the Catholic Church should give up its objection to the contraceptive services mandate based on its beliefs because:
"Did God also never tell us to "obey the authorities"? "
That is a Catch 22 from a constitutional view. If the Free Exercise Clause means anything, it means a Church can object to immoral governmental diktats.
So far as the Bible goes, the contention that God appointed all governments may be accepted in some Protestant churches but it is a false idea. I won't use the "H Name" but sorry, God did not appoint Stalin or Pol Pot. Nor did He appoint Henry VIII or other anti-Catholics who tried to control the Church and restrict its freedom to evangelize (e.g., Robespierre or Plutarco Calles). The individual Christian should obey the law where it doesn't offend his conscience, but some laws are immoral and need not be followed.
(As for "Everything that rises must converge," google Tielhard de Chardin.)
For the record, many (if not all) churches that contend that God ordains all governments also contend that some laws need not be followed. In this case, involvement in payment for sin (if one believes contraceptives to be such) would violate God's law, and so whether you believe the magistrate is God-ordained or not, you obey God rather than man.
To put the institution vs. individual conscience question on its head, if institutions are to avoid payment for this kind of activity, why not individual Christians? I've never heard anyone exhorting anyone to opt-out of their employer's health plan if it covers abortions/contraceptives (most of them do)? I had never thought about it until this issue came up.
As much as I hate what the administration has done, can we please show it a little Christian charity and acknowledge that its intention is not to reduce our religious liberty, but to accomplish something they see as good? Yes, the missions of the church are predicated on conscience. Is it not possible our opponents are acting on the basis of conscience as well? Only when we love our enemies enough to give credit where credit is due will they see Christ in us, and listen.
I do, though.
The country may be so far gone that to be accused of supporting the Natural Law is fear-mongering to the verge of slander. It probably is. If so, I should stop worrying about whether we will hit bottom, and start worrying about whether we will bounce; stop worrying about whether the Republic will die, and start worrying whether it will afterwards be called forth from the tomb like Lazarus.
Am I supposed to swoon for Republican candidates because they lack the conviction that contraception is wrong, or because they lack the courage to speak truthfully about it? Should I praise them for being knaves, or for being cowards?
Your Biblical exegesis is interesting. Do you really think that Jesus established a Church and asked his Apostles and disciples to go out preaching in His name, proclaim the Gospel about his death and resurrection so that everyone would just remain where they are and never come to him?
Whether you believe in the veracity of scriptures or not, as a story there is no other way to read the New Testament (there's a clue in the "title") than that Christ established a Church and wanted that Church to convert the world.
Ok, with that in mind:
"Deeper down, the Bible was urging us to make our peace even with other religions it seems. Jesus said he had come only to the "People of Israel"; but finally he was allowed to suggest some mercy, grace, for "Samaritans" too. While Paul added, Greeks."
Yes, the new covenant was broadened to not only include God's "chosen people", the Jews, but anyone who professed faith in Christ and was baptized.
That is decidedly different that Jesus making a "compromise." Jesus said, "I am the Truth" How does Truth compromise? Does He Love all of his children. Absolutely. Does He treat us with mercy? More than we can know or deserve. That is not the same thing as a "compromise. If we are to believe scripture and what the Church has consistently taught for 2000 years (and you don't have to, but you need to be intellectually honest about what they are saying), Christ wants us all to know Him.
Jesus was an observant Jew. He did not "compromise" - he fulfilled. "I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." He told his followers to "do everything they tell you." The "they" are the Pharisees. He said it because the Pharisees were acting hypocritical in their actions, asking people to do what they would not. Where exactly is the compromise?? The more proper analogy is Christ telling Catholics to follow Church teaching, even though some of its members are clearly not.
Again, you don't have to believe scripture, but your interpretation is not supported by the text, or the context in which it was written.
"As much as I hate what the administration has done, can we please show it a little Christian charity and acknowledge that its intention is not to reduce our religious liberty, but to accomplish something they see as good?"
No, but I am not going to indulge in mind-reading. Whatever the Administration's "intention," its actions would effect a reduction in religious liberty and I accept the legal maxim that people are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts.
So if you spank your child your goal is to hurt him? Or do you regret the hurt but think that it's necessary in order to achieve another end which is for his own good?
I always thought the quote ("everything that rises must converge") was from Flannery O'Connor's short story with that title, but then again, I do know she had a lot of fun reading Teilhard de Chardin. Most theologians, including Teilhard's good friend DeLubac, looked at Teilhard as a poet. Certainly he erred in at least 3 ways with his theology, including the belief that God evolves ("becomes") with us. But Origen erred in a similar fashion when caught up in a mystical view of things. So although Teilhard will never become a doctor of the Church, his writings can be recommended with caution.
Appealing to the First Amendment of the Constitution is not refusing to obey the government, so we can dispense with that one right there.
Uh, yes unless you're on the Supreme Court, it certainly is. There is no individual right to act according to one's own interpretation of the Constitution.
In other words, confronting the government with its own words and attempting to get them enforced. Not only is that not disobeying the government, it's what the government (as described in the Constitution) *says we should do* when we think the government is doing something in error. How is that lack of subjection?
IOW, the command to be subject to the authorities does not deny us the ability to try to correct the government, and most especially it does not enjoin us from attempting to enforce the constitution by all legal means. It's not a command to roll over without questioning injustice, it's a command not to rebel. There's a lot of space in between those two concepts. Some are using the command against rebellion to imply that if the government comes up with a stupid law that violates its own primary founding documents, we should just meekly obey and act as though we don't live in a constitutional republic that provides us recourse. That's neither biblical nor logical.
You are allowed to verbally object to this or that action, as unconstitutional in your own - even unprofessional - opinion.
But if you then ACT according to your own unique understanding of the law? And your opinion is against the accepted SCOTUS rulings?
Then you are simply ... breaking the law. Or in theological terms: sinning.
And if you are encouraging others to do the same? Then in theological terms, you are engaging in "false teaching." And encouraging them to break the law. Which might be in many cases, "direct material cooperation in evil."
But I was not talking about that. I was talking about taking the case to court, lobbying, and otherwise legally pressuring the government to change its own unlawful position. That's what "appealing" to the First Amendment means. That is more than just murmuring your opinion "verbally" into the ether -- it is a form of action, but it is not a *disobedient* action because the *law itself* provides for that form of action against the government action.
If you were just doing what you thought was right, no "appeal" to anything would be necessary because you wouldn't be making a case to anyone. So I wouldn't have used the word "appeal" if that's what I had meant.
I'm not disagreeing with your point; I'm saying you have to misunderstand mine to raise the objection you raised.
Though? I'd say that from your tone, you may have been on the edge. If we are using precipitous language? Incendiary language? Angry words? Then ... we are very close to causing actions. Depending on our audience.
A: Obama's willing to negotiate with the Taliban.
And 2) there have historically always been such accomodations: pacifist Quakers are not allowed to fail to pay the portion of their income tax that would support the defense department.
So that in point of fact, 3) the magisterium of the Catholic Church allows cooperating with the large body politic; as at most, "remote material cooperation."
While indeed, 4) the Church currently practices such cooperation. In that it allows reproductive services, and the dissemination of contraceptive services, in hundreds of Catholic hospitals throughout the United States.
At first, it seems unthinkable that the Church would "compromise" its conscience, ever. And yet? There is massive precident for it; even in the Bible itself. And throughout Church history ... and current Church practice.