Holy Terror?

The next item in our survey of the documents of Vatican II during this “Year of Faith” is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate). It’s the shortest Vatican II document, containing only five numbered paragraphs. Schematically, it is a bridge between the Decree on Ecumenism, which pertains to fostering the unity of all Christians, and the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, which pertains to bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

Woe to the Church if she ever fails to proclaim Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16), yet the Church recognizes that we must build on points of agreement with other faiths and work for the common good. In this regard, Nostra Aetate singles out Islam (no. 3) and Judaism (no. 4) for special treatment. The Declaration affirms that all people must be treated with respect, and the Church reproves any unjust discrimination based on race, color, condition of life, or religion as being foreign to the mind of Christ (no. 5).

The following quote in paragraph 2 aptly summarizes the approach of Nostra Aetate:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

Discussion of Nostra Aetate reminds me of the time that a student of mine asked me to explain how terrorism could possibly be justified as doing “God’s will.” I think that’s an important issue for us to consider at its root.

Obviously this issue arises in the context of Islam, since at least some adherents of that religion support—and act upon—the notion that terrorism can be justified as an act of jihad, or “holy war.”

Pope Benedict XVI addressed this complex issue in his widely publicized 2006 lecture at Regensburg University in Germany, in which he embodies the principles of Nostra Aetate. The Pope stressed Christianity’s view that God is intrinsically linked to reason. The Greek word for reason, rationality, and intelligibility is logos, which is commonly translated as verbum (Latin) or “word” (English) in Scripture. In fact, Christ is presented as the eternal Word of God incarnate. We see that point clearly made at the outset of the fourth Gospel:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn. 1:1, 14).

I should clarify here that the God of Christianity is not mere rationality personified, but rather is more fundamentally a Father who acts in the objectively best interests of His children. Christ is the eternal Son of God who came to reveal the Father’s saving love for us.

Islam, on the other hand, stresses God’s absolute transcendence. The God of Islam immeasurably exceeds our limited human comprehension. That’s certainly true, as we all can agree that God’s ways are not our ways (cf. Is. 55:8-9). But the Muslim people do not see in Christ God’s incarnate love for man, which has led God to make Himself known to us. Instead, according to the Holy Father, Islam teaches that God’s “will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

The risk of this image of the divine is that the irrationality of violence can potentially be justified if someone believes it is “God’s will” or the “will of Allah.”

So the question boils down to whether God can and does act irrationally (or super-rationally). We say no, but Islam says yes.

As Pope John Paul II stressed in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, at the heart of the fall of Adam and Eve is the rejection of God’s fatherhood. Pope Benedict, in his Regensburg lecture, was trying to explain how all this has played out on a philosophical level. He offers Christianity as a means of bridging the gap between an “extreme” faith without reason (“fundamentalism” or “fideism”) and “extreme” (and often impoverished) reason without faith (“materialism,” “secularism,” etc.).

Without some common ground, there simply is no basis for Islam and the secular West to understand each other and work toward the common good.

For the secularist, the rejection of God’s fatherhood is a rejection of God altogether, though such rejection is typically accompanied by idolatry (e.g., consumerism, hedonism, etc.) and diversions (e.g., TV). The former seeks to fill the void left by God, the latter seeks to ignore the emptiness.

For the Muslim, God is not a Father but rather a tyrant or task master in the sense that His sovereign will is not tethered to rationality or “the good.” God is so far removed from man that it’s offensive to Muslims even to suggest that that God may be our “Father.”

That’s the amazing thing about our faith. When Christ teaches us to pray, the first words out of His mouth are “Our Father.” And when He sends His Holy Spirit into our hearts, we instinctively call out “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4:6) and become participants in God’s inner life (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4).

Muslims need reason. The decadent West needs God. And all of us need Jesus Christ, who shows us the way to the Father.

U.S. Bishops Announce Five-Point Plan

Earlier this month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced a campaign of prayer and fasting in 2013 for the “rebuilding of a culture favorable to life and marriage and for increased protections of religious liberty.”

The campaign, which will begin the Sunday after Christmas, “is essentially a call and encouragement to prayer and sacrifice--it’s meant to be simple," said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. “It’s not meant to be another program but rather part of a movement for life, marriage, and religious liberty, which engages the New Evangelization and can be incorporated into the Year of Faith.”

In addition, as a culture that tends to make “New Year’s resolutions,” we do well as individuals, families, and parishes to incorporate this plan--especially the call to abstain from meat and fast on all Fridays--into our own lives. In doing so, we would be following the edifying example of Archbishop Naumann.

The campaign, which will begin the Sunday after Christmas, has five parts:

Statements from the U.S. Bishops and the Pope on Tomorrow’s Election

The Kansas Bishops:

http://www.kscathconf.org/election-2012/

Certain political issues place a special claim upon the Catholic conscience. These issues, where matters of intrinsic evil directly intersect with public policy, require unity from the Catholic faithful. Something is understood to be intrinsically evil if it is evil in and of itself, regardless of our motives or the circumstances. The Catholic faith requires Catholics to oppose abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the redefinition of marriage. These matters are not negotiable, for they contradict the natural law, available to everyone through human reasoning, and they violate unchanging and unchangeable Catholic moral principles.

The Catholic faith requires Catholics to oppose abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the redefinition of marriage.

While these issues are often adjudicated in the political arena, they are not, strictly speaking, “political issues.” Instead, they are fundamentally moral questions involving core Catholic teachings on what is right and what is wrong. Catholics who depart from Church teaching on these issues separate themselves from full communion with the Church.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput O.F.M. Cap. of Philadelphia:

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36380

I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion. I’m not a Republican and I’m not a Democrat. I’m registered as an independent, because I don’t think the church should be identified with one party or another. As an individual and voter I have deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom. Those kinds of issues cause me a great deal of uneasiness.

http://www.hliworldwatch.org/?p=1898

I think many of the Democrats have [taken] Democrat Catholic votes for granted because they’ll go with them no matter what the Party position might be on abortion. That’s why the position of the Democrat Party has gotten worse, and worse, and worse as time goes on because Catholics haven’t abandoned them as they’ve moved in that direction. So we just have to be insistent on that Catholic identity takes precedence over everything.

A New Birth of Religious Freedom

As the Fortnight for Freedom comes to a close today, we do well to take to heart these words of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. of Philadelphia:

“Religious liberty is an empty shell if the spiritual core of a people is weak. Or to put it more bluntly, if people don’t believe in God, religious liberty isn’t a value. That’s the heart of the matter. It’s the reason Pope Benedict calls us to a Year of Faith this October.

“The worst enemies of religious freedom aren’t “out there” among the legion of critics who hate Christ or the Gospel or the Church, or all three. The worst enemies are in here, with us–all of us, clergy, religious, and lay–when we live our faith with tepidness, routine, and hypocrisy.

“Religious liberty isn’t a privilege granted by the state. It’s our birthright as children of God. And even the worst bigotry can’t kill it in the face of a believing people. But if we value it and want to keep it, then we need to become people worthy of it. Which means we need to change the way we live–radically change, both as individual Catholics and as the Church.”

Scouts’ Honor

In “Scouts’ Major Failing” (Kansas City Star, 3/8/12), commentator Mary Sanchez issued an open letter to Robert Mazzuca, an executive with Boy Scouts of America who was in town earlier this week for a prayer breakfast. The purpose of her letter was to call upon Boy Scouts to change their policy prohibiting openly homosexual men from serving as scout leaders and volunteers.

Sanchez uses the pronoun “we,” as though she speaks for all or even most KC-area residents, which clearly is not the case.

She says that there are many among the 2.7 million young men currently involved in scouting “who now or later will identify as gay,” and that the Boy Scouts “is failing them.” She does acknowledge that Boy Scouts have chartering organizations, most of which are churches, which presumably have moral reservations in this area. Therefore she is “insistent” that Boy Scouts’ leadership needs to be proactive in making its organization more accepting of homosexuality.

When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church makes some very important distinctions. A person with same-sex attraction must always be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. However, homosexual acts, as consistently taught in Scripture and throughout Christian history, are gravely sinful. Because homosexual acts are sinful, the inclination to commit such acts is considered a disorder. In that sense, any inclination to commit immoral acts is a disorder. The term used for this in Catholic theology is concupiscence, and all of us struggle against inclinations to various sins.

Sanchez, meanwhile, uses the commonly accepted term “gay,” which in today’s parlance refers to someone with same-sex attraction who identifies himself according to that attraction and who has embraced it as a good thing. While most people still accept in some fashion “the other commandments,” our sexually promiscuous culture has gone to great lengths to legitimize sexual activity that our Judeo-Christian culture has traditionally regarded as sinful, including homosexual acts.

Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, and many others therefore do not think it is healthy or wise to encourage developing, adolescent men who may experience same-sex attraction to identify themselves as “gay” and to become part of the “gay culture.” Sanchez disagrees, and that is her right. But she does not stop there, but rather lectures the Boy Scouts and Christian churches for not agreeing with her–for not abandoning their deeply held beliefs and buying into the spirit of the age.

Sanchez begrudgingly acknowledges that the Boy Scouts have the right to prohibit openly homosexual men from leading groups of young men because of the U.S. Supreme Court (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale), but she openly questions whether the Boy Scouts–and by extension, the Christian churches with whom they closely work–should continue to have this right. In an age where the government is trying in unprecedented ways to take away our right to the free exercise of our religion, one cannot help but be disturbed by attempts to tell Christian churches, organizations, and parents what we must teach our children regarding homosexuality.

We are not that far removed, if we are not vigilant, from having the expression of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality considered a criminal offense. An article appearing this week at National Review tells the story of a Canadian gentleman who took out an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and he and the paper wound up getting fined $9,000 for “exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.” Here is the entire text of the offending advertisement:

Romans 1:26
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9

That’s right: three Scripture passages on homosexuality. The Bible is now considered hate speech, and those who teach what it says can expect to be prosecuted if the United States follows the lead of other secularized Western nations.

For those of us who hold, as a matter of faith and/or science, that same-sex attraction is a disorder, it is eminently sensible not to place someone who openly embraces such a disordered inclination in a position to mentor
impressionable, pubescent boys who are in the process of developing
their own sexual identities.

It would also be unwise to send an openly homosexual man on overnight outings with adolescent boys in the same way that it would be foolish to send a heterosexual man on overnight outings with adolescent girls. It’s a matter of prudence, not discrimination.

Sanchez acknowledges the great effects the Boy Scouts have had on her own siblings as well as on the greater Kansas City community. The Boy Scouts have developed a formula based on Christian values that has withstood the test of time. God bless them for remaining true to their principles in a society that needs their principles and values now more than ever.

Chilling Attack on Religious Freedom

A stinging Wall Street Journal editorial has backed Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York in his criticism of the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate, describing the White House stand as a “chilling” attack on religious freedom.

Catholic World News summarizes:

“Citing Cardinal Dolan’s report on a meeting with White House aides, at which representatives of the bishops’ conference were told that issues of conscience were ‘off the table,’ the Journal editorial observed: ‘In other words, the White House’s solution is merely for the bishops to shut up about the wrinkles.’ With their condescending citation of some liberal Catholics who approved the mandate, the Journal continued, the Obama administration was ‘in effect telling the bishops that they know less about church teachings than your average Washington Post columnist.’

“The Journal recognized the Obama administration’s strategy of dividing the Church, noting the implicit White House message that ‘Catholics who actually abide by their faith are opposed to modernity.’ The editorial concluded with the observation that apparently the Catholic bishops cannot stop ‘the dominant wing of America’s governing political party from insisting that religion kneel before its secular will.’”

Six More Things to Know About the HHS Mandate

The USCCB has provided some helpful bullet points on the new so-called accommodation of religious organizations with respect to the HHS mandate:

(1) The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.”

(2) The rule leaves open the possibility that even exempt “religious employers” will be forced to cover sterilization. In its August 2011 comments, USCCB warned that the narrow “religious employer” exemption appeared to provide no relief from the sterilization mandate—only the contraception mandate—and specifically sought clarification. (We also noted that a sterilization mandate exists in only one state, Vermont.) HHS provided no clarification, so the risk remains under the unchanged final rule.

(3) The new “accommodation” is not a current rule, but a promise that comes due beyond the point of public accountability. Also on Friday evening, HHS issued regulations describing the intention to develop more regulations that would apply the same mandate differently to “non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations”—the charities, schools, and hospitals that are still left out of the “religious employer” exemption. These policies will be developed over a one-year delay in enforcement, so if they turn out badly, their impact will not be felt until August 2013, well after the election.

(4) Even if the promises of “accommodation” are fulfilled entirely, religious charities, schools, and hospitals will still be forced to violate their beliefs. If an employee of these second-class-citizen religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. There can be no additional cost to that employee, and the coverage is not a separate policy. By process of elimination, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

(5) The “accommodation” does not even purport to help objecting insurers, for-profit religious employers, secular employers, or individuals. In its August 2011 comments, and many times since, USCCB identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Friday’s actions emphasize that all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the “accommodation.”

(6) Beware of claims, especially by partisans, that the bishops are partisan. The bishops and their staff read regulations before evaluating them. The bishops did not pick this fight in an election year—others did. Bishops form their positions based on principles—here, religious liberty for all, and the life and dignity of every human person—not polls, personalities, or political parties. Bishops are duty bound to proclaim these principles, in and out of season.

Click here for the “first six things” you should know about the mandate.

What You Need to Know About the HHS Mandate

The communications department of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has offered some important clarifications regarding the Health and Human Services (“HHS”) regulations on mandatory coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, reproduced below:

1. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them “religious employers” worthy of conscience protection, because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society–a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

3. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” HHS’s mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as “Ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.

4. Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate. Even Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its healthcare policies have publicly criticized HHS’s decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields, and Michael Sean Winters; Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins: and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association.

The Sebelius Contraception Edict: What you need to know

Kathleen Sebelius, director of Health and Human Resources

My friends and I used to have a joke whenever a celebrity died. We’d say, with some degree of incredulity, “So and So is dead? I didn’t even know he was sick!” I feel that way sometimes when a big news story breaks on a subject I wasn’t following and all the newsmen report like you already know what’s going on. It’s like listening in on two friends debating without knowing what started it.

Lots of bishops including our own Archbishop Naumann are starting a debate by  speaking out against the  Health and Human Services (“HHS”) contraception mandate and the threat it imposes upon our religious liberties as Americans to follow our conscience.  However, probably many Catholics in the pews are just now entering into the conversation and wondering what’s going on. So here’s the low down:

When Congress passed and President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, what is commonly called Obamacare, it mandated that all health insurance providers cover “preventative services.” Most Americans were thinking of things like yearly physicals. However, the law did not spell out exactly what kind of services are preventative and left that to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Last year, former Kansas Governor and self-identified Catholic, Kathleen Sebelius, as the HHS secretary announced her decision to declare contraception as a preventative service and furthermore that providers must cover 100% of the cost. These contraceptive services include sterilization and drugs that can induce abortion. This “contraception edict” was the fulfillment of a feminist objective to provide free contraception to everyone. Thus very soon the federal government will require all employers pay for their employees’ contraceptives. Secretary Sebelius has declared that this ruling will go into effect in 2013, conveniently after the presidential election.

Now here’s the problem: