As a Roman Catholic Eucharist Minister and
prayer group leader I feel compelled to write this open letter expressing deep
concern over the troubling evidence of a profound schism and deepening conflict
within the Church. In light of
recent events there is now little doubt that the Church is in deep crisis. It is in precipitous decline in Europe
and shows the beginnings of a similar decline in the United States. Traditional Catholic monasticism (and
the rich contemplative tradition it cultivated) is dying out and being reborn
outside of the Church. As more and
more Christians find themselves rejecting traditional Christian moral teachings
on many issues, the Church hierarchy has redoubled its efforts to reassert its
authority in civil policy judgments and reign in free
thinking Catholic Ministries. Many Catholics, feeling disillusioned and
disenfranchised, have left the church, stopped attending mass, or stopped
listening to Catholic clergy. Many of us have recently suffered through
inflammatory sermons over civil policy issues in our parish churches. This schism is feeding into the
polarization of our larger society that has crippled our government and incited
incendiary rhetoric throughout the nation’s media and pulpits. It is becoming increasingly clear
that there is trouble brewing within the Church- a house divided against itself
cannot stand.
The emerging schism is typically framed as a
conflict between absolutism to the right of the schism and relativism to the
left. Absolutism asserts that there
can be only one authoritative standpoint in moral discernment. This standpoint is based upon universal, eternal,
non-negotiable laws as interpreted by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Relativism asserts that our moral
principles are social constructs that can and should change over time,
reflecting evolving societal values and worldviews. This conflict has erupted into a raging
battle in the arena of civil policy deliberation. Given the severity of this escalating battle
it is important to examine the implications of the Church’s teachings on these
matters. In the process we will
discover that both mindsets yield important insights, and that the roots of the
conflict can be illuminated by a deeper investigation of the rational thought
process.
The Church’s claims
to absolute moral authority on civil policy issues is based on the belief that the
“natural law” -universal, non-negotiable principles, established by God- can
clearly and unambiguously guide moral determinations in the domain of civil
policy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
states: “The
natural law states the first and essential precepts that govern the moral life…
(it) expresses the original moral sense which enables
man to discern by reason the good and the evil… The natural law is written and
engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining
him to do good… (it) is
universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It provides the necessary basis for the
civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws
conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical
nature” [CCC 1954-1959].
The church makes a
clear distinction between the domain of natural law and the domain of civil
law. Natural law is the universal
and eternal “light of understanding placed in us by
God at the Creation” [St. Thomas Aquinas]. Civil
law is a historical domain ruled by the affirmations of the
U.S. constitution, the multi-faceted morass of legal statutes, and the multicultural
diversity of ethical beliefs of U.S. citizens. Application of natural law within the domain of civil law requires
a process of discernment that depends upon many factors that differ from one individual
to another. In order to discern
the will of God “man strives to interpret the data of
experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by
the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his
gifts.” [CCC
1788] The process of discernment is, first and
foremost, a rational process, and as a rational process it is rooted in each
individual’s personal knowledge and “data of experience”. “Application of the natural law varies
greatly, it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of
life according to places, times, and circumstances” [CCC 1957], confronting us with a “situation that
makes moral judgments less assured and decisions difficult.” [CCC 1787]
The guidance of the Holy Spirit is constrained by the rational thought process which is biased by our knowledge, experience,
beliefs, attachments, values, ideals, and prejudices.
The Church teaches that all
human beings are subject to “errors of
judgment” in moral discernment. One of the principal sources of error is
the “assertion of a mistaken notion of
autonomy of conscience”, [CCC 1792]
which is the assumption that one’s knowledge is complete and impartial and
one’s vision is all encompassing so that there is no need to seek the “advice of competent people” or
to factor the discernments of others into one’s personal deliberations. As we live in a society of ever
increasing complexity, the moral discernments we face in the civil domain are
becoming increasingly complex and difficult, making the “advice of competent people” ever more crucial to the discernment process. True discernment is impossible
without the desire for complete and impartial knowledge. For example, a discernment of the
morality of new auto emission standards would have little value without
consultation with a scientist who, having studied the available data and mathematical
models, can give a competent estimate, to the best of human knowledge, of the magnitude
of the human impact of the projected reductions in carbon loading of the
atmosphere. Any discernment based on misinformation, even with the guidance of
the Holy Spirit, is invariably nonsense.
Unless one has achieved the station of prophethood,
even the Holy Spirit cannot circumvent the law of “garbage in, garbage out”.
We live our lives embedded in increasingly complex networks of
political, sociological, and environmental systems. Every civil policy declaration
has repercussions that propagate throughout this intricate network, generating
positive and negative impacts in the lives of countless individuals. For a complex civil program such the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) there are possibly hundreds of factors to consider
and carefully weigh (guided by the Holy Spirit) if one is to make a proficient moral
evaluation [1]. There are no universal principles that
dictate how these various factors must be weighted- all decisions will be
rooted in one’s own knowledge and experience. Because each person’s knowledge
and experience differ (constituting that person’s unique point of view), each
person, guided by the Holy Spirit, can be expected to arrive at a unique
discernment when applying natural law in the complex realm of public policy. Even small changes in perspective
can, by shifting the weighting of the various considerations and values, result
in large variations in the final judgment. Each of us is like one of the proverbial blind men in a room with
an elephant, attempting to determine the nature of the beast. One feels the tail and cries,
“it’s like a rope!” Another feels the leg and cries, “it’s like a pillar!” Another feels the belly and cries, “it’s
like a barrel!” Clearly all of the
viewpoints arrive at different discernments, and none are definitive.
The issues that face us today are so complex, and the volumes of
information at our fingertips are so vast, that acquiring full knowledge of all
the important considerations involved in any moral judgment of civil policy is
virtually impossible. This
process of efficiently weighing a multitude of considerations and values with an
overabundance of information is very challenging- so challenging that most Catholics
balk and simply cherry pick one or two factors that suite their disposition and
rest their case. By ignoring all
contrary considerations and focusing on a single facet of the deliberation one
can fabricate the appearance of straightforwardness and the illusion of
certainty.
For example, in order to “ensure that Americans
nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy”, the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) mandates that most private health plans cover important preventive
health care services[2]. These services include estrogen-progesterone treatments which, in
addition to their application in preventing pregnancies (which for many women can
be life threatening due to pre-existing conditions), are the most reliable and
effective treatment for cervical cancer, ovarian cysts, menopause
complications, and a host of other women’s health issues. In light of the Church’s teaching that
it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to
health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status
or their ability to pay” [Pope
Benedict XVI], many
Catholics, guided by the Holy Spirit, have discerned that support for this
aspect of women’s health care is consistent with natural law, and that the ACA’s
wall of conscience protection
surrounding religious institutions is adequate to allay the moral concerns
regarding contraception. The Catholic Health Association has endorsed
this position[3]. On the other side of the schism a group
of bishops led by archbishop Timothy Dolan arrived at a very different discernment by ignoring all human health issues
surrounding this health care mandate and focusing exclusively on theological
principles concerning contraception.
As a result they have declared that the ACA mandate represents an
unprecedented attack on religious freedom, called for a “great national
campaign” of political and legal protest, and instigated a flurry of federal
lawsuits, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to work with
the Catholic Health Association to address the remaining moral concerns of
fellow Catholics[4]. Outrage at the bishops’ apparent
disregard for women’s health, wisdom, and conscience has
ignited widespread “war on women” allegations, helped alienate many
churchgoers, and exacerbated the emerging Catholic schism. The ongoing conflict has inflamed
acrimonious attacks from the Church’s pulpits and the national media. Incited by the bishops’ call to arms,
the Knights of Columbus and various Catholic priests on Fox Network News have called
upon Catholics to rise up in defense of religious liberty, implying the need
for armed conflict and martyrdom. Moderate
Catholic bishops were “very upset” by archbishop Dolan’s “headlong rush
to litigation”, expressing concern that
certain groups “very far to the right” are co-opting the contraception rules debate in pursuit of a
right wing political agenda[5]. An
increasingly large number of Americans are viewing archbishop Dolan’s campaign as election-year partisan rabble
rousing, undermining the Church’s credibility on moral issues.
This
firestorm highlights the crux of the growing Catholic schism. One the right side
of the schism a group of bishops asserts that their standpoint on the ACA mandate represents the non-negotiable Word of God. On the left side a large group of
Catholics who, due to their unique knowledge and experience, have arrived at
different discernments and assert that multiple points of view can and should
be considered in moral discernments regarding civil policy. A bishop, whose knowledge is dominated
by abstract theological principles, and a Catholic health care professional, who
is a competent authority with a wealth of personal experience in the realm of
health care, can be expected to arrive at different discernments regarding the moral
issues surrounding health care. It
is crucial for the integrity of the Church for Catholic authority figures to recognize
that BOTH of these discernments are expressions of natural law inspired by the
same Spirit. Sermons and
other public statements that attempt to rally Catholics to support one faction
against the other violate the conscience rights of all Catholics and incite
division and discord within the Church.
The Church teaches that respect for the conscience rights of
others is a cardinal rule of
moral discernment. “Faced with a
moral choice… charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and
his conscience”. [CCC
1789] Human beings have the right and the duty
to follow dictates of their conscience. “Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural
right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of
respect. The right to the
exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an
inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person”. [CCC 1738] Freedom
of conscience is an essential aspect of free will and a
key component of the divine plan of salvation. “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own
counsel… By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual
freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in
the world.” [CCC
1730, 1742] This same Holy Spirit -that
descended upon the apostles at Pentecost- is working in us here and now,
bestowing a diversity of spiritual gifts upon each of us as members of the
mystical body of Christ. The body
of Christ has many members, and the perspective of every member is important,
particularly the forgotten, the rejected, and the downtrodden. “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee… Nay much
more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
and those members of the body, which seem to be less honorable, upon these we
bestow more abundant honor… that there should be no schism in the body.”
[1 Cor. 4-25] Each of us is endowed
with unique spiritual gifts and, by virtue of these gifts, offers a unique
perspective on the relationship between the natural law and the affairs of
daily life. Thus each of us
has an important role to play in the education of the conscience faculty of
the body of Christ.
Our Catholic beliefs are intended to bring about the communion of
the faithful and join us all in intimacy with Christ. “Unity is the essence of the Church” [CCC 813].
Unfortunately the same beliefs can be used to drive a wedge between those
Catholics who share our views and those with a different perspective, creating
division and discord within the body of Christ. Jesus warned his disciples against
getting caught up in moral crusades [Matthew
5:39-48]. The societal “evil” we feel most
compelled to fight is typically a projection of that part of ourselves that is unforgiven, so that in fighting perceived evils we are
actually fighting the rejected and repressed parts of our own personality [Matthew
7:1-2]. Jesus instructs us to focus on clearing
the barriers to our own vision rather then disparaging the viewpoints of others
[Matthew 7:3-5]. We are to give the
perspectives of others the same respect that we would expect them to give ours [Matthew
7:12]. This lesson appears to be
particularly difficult for those in positions of religious authority. Jesus enraged the clergy of his own
religion by ignoring their theological principles in order to serve the health
care needs of the people [Mark 3:1-6]. As peacemakers we are called to rise
above the distinctions and differences that divide us, but all too often we
fall back into defending our theological turf, using our beliefs to fortify the
ramparts of our self-image.
Although the Church teaches that the natural
law is non-negotiable, every proposition of civil law is and must be
negotiable. In a democratic
nation all civil policy deliberations must encompass many distinct points of
view, each with unique knowledge, values, and perspective on the natural law. We are called to be peacemakers in
this process, which will require the humility to accept that our point of view
is not the same as God’s and the maturity to acknowledge alternate viewpoints
without feeling attacked. We must
avoid the “assertion of a mistaken notion of
autonomy of conscience” by recognizing that we all “see as through a glass, darkly”
[1
Cor. 13:12], i.e. our knowledge is partial and our perspective is
biased. Recalling the analogy
of the blind men and the elephant, it should be clear that an unbiased and
comprehensive discernment requires the integration of numerous diverse
perspectives (with deference to competency in the domains of
consideration). The Mind of
Christ is vast enough to simultaneously embrace a multitude of diverse
perspectives, including those that, due to our limited knowledge and
perspective, appear to be contradictory.
The
escalating conflict and growing schism within the Church is a clarion call for
more enlightened leadership. If the
Church is to remain whole we must let go of our crusades, turn our swords into
plowshares, and once again embrace the wisdom of all members of the mystical
body of Christ. The Church’s enemy
is not in civil society[6] -it is in ourselves- in our fear, in our
defensiveness, in our condemnation of our bothers and sisters in Christ. “Distrustful souls see only darkness burdening the face of the
earth. We prefer instead to
reaffirm all our confidence in our Savior who has not abandoned the world which
he redeemed.” [Pope John XXIII] Fighting to coerce others to conform to
our faction’s interpretation of natural law is a disruptive waste
of time and energy that feeds the problem more then the solution. Salvation of the world is in God’s
hands. “We firmly believe that God is master of the world and its
history. But the ways of his
providence are often unknown to us.
Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God face
to face, will we fully know the ways by which -even through the dramas of evil
and sin- God has guided his creation to that definitive Sabbath rest for which
he created heaven and earth.” [CCC 314] Now, more then ever, is the
time to refocus, unite the Church, and rededicate ourselves to the eternal
Truth of the Word of God revealed to us by Jesus Christ: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father;
take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the
world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you
gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed
clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison
and you came to visit me.” [Matt
25:34-36]
[1] Some of the important considerations that tend to be ignored include : 1) the ACA would cover the medical costs of carrying, delivering, and caring for a baby, which are much higher then the costs of an abortion, thus removing a major incentive for uninsured mothers to abort their pregnancies, 2) the ACA would provide millions of Americans with health insurance, potentially averting thousands of premature deaths due to treatable conditions, 3) the ACA would outlaw the dishonest insurance practices that have resulted in many tragic, preventable deaths, 4) every one of the many first world countries that have implemented universal health care programs that, like the ACA, cover the costs of abortion, child birth, and contraception have lower (and typically much lower) per capita abortion rates then the United States.
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions
[3] The CHA statement: “The
Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement
that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and
conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has
responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.
We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience
protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated
enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of
Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance.
This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country
sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our
great democracy.”
[4] To many
Catholics the assertions that Catholic institutions
are denied religious liberty or morally compromised by the Affordable Care Act
seem far-fetched. “A pretty good wall of conscience protection surrounds
the health care law, insulating religious institutions from complicity in
providing drugs opposed by the Church. All diocesan health insurance
plans (and all sub-plans organized under diocesan management) are completely
exempt from providing contraception insurance. All plans for religious
orders or sub-plans organized under religious orders are completely
exempt. All Catholic colleges and universities with self-funded student
plans can be completely exempt. And while employees of public Catholic
institutions such as hospitals and charities will receive coverage for these
drugs, the religious institutions themselves play no role in either paying for
or facilitating that coverage. Planned accommodations shield Catholic
hospitals and charities from involvement by having outside insurance companies
or plan administrators pay for and facilitate the
objectionable coverage. Moreover, these accommodations still remain
open for tweaks and adjustments as religious groups work with the
administration during the existing comment period that extends for many more
months”. From: http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/cgf52212schneck.php
[5] Many Catholic bishops see the litigation
as premature. They are upset that the lawsuits were brought without a broader
discussion among the entire membership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops and wanted to delay action until the Conference’s June meeting. Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, head of the
domestic policy committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed
concern that some groups “very far to the right” are turning the controversy
over the contraception rules into “an anti-Obama campaign”, stating “I think
there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into a political
issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops.” See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/obama-birth-control-manda_n_1540951.html.
[6] For
the past three hundred years interaction with civil society has consistently
enriched the Church’s teachings. Liberal democratic governments, freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, abolition of slavery, women’s rights, multiculturalism,
and the proliferation of contemplative spiritual practice were all pioneered by
western civil society.
Although initially resisted, all of these breakthroughs were eventually
assimilated into the Church’s traditional teachings, deepening and enriching
our interpretation of natural law and expanding our ministries. The Church and
civil society have much to learn from each other- the Church can teach the
reverence and devotion that arises from an open heart, and civil society can
teach the magnanimity that arises from an open mind.
Thomas, I am glad to see this Blog and this (first?) post. Lots to reflect on here.
ReplyDeleteYour footnotes are pertinent and helpfully lay out and source some of the important voices in the current dialogue(s).
I wonder if your characterization of the civil law as "nebulous" is entirely accurate. The interpretation of the laws does change, and is subject to seemingly capricious judgements of the courts. But there is one clear difference between civil law and what you term "natural" law. That difference is the prosecutorial power of the civil law. The hierarchy of our church is very much aware of this power.
I find it personally troubling that the official church, speaking and acting through the bishops, has decided to invoke prosecutorial powers to enforce sacramental theology. The Marriage Equality campaign is a case in point.
Literally no one is insisting that priests be required to officiate at same-sex marriages; nevertheless, the hierarchy is intent on excluding some citizens from the court house, on the theory that marriage is understood sacramentally as exclusively between one man and one woman and the courthouse is equivalent to the sanctuary.
The hierarchy is overreaching here by trying to invoke the prosecutorial powers of the state, against both science (which finds same-sex couples fully competent as parents) and the civil rights of a discrete minority. The bishops anti-marriage campaign is a pastoral disaster and places the hierarchy (certainly not lay Catholics or priests) in an embarrassing alliance with nativist and reactionary elements, well out of the mainstream of the dialogue devoted to whether and how civil rights can be extended further in our society.
Richard, many thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments. The bishops' campaign against gay civil unions/marriages does seem to rooted in confusion between the domain of natural law and the domain of civil law. IMO to preserve the integrity of the Church it is very important for these bishops to realize that, for many Catholics, the affirmation of "marriage equality" is an expression of genuine Christian magnanimity, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. These Catholics are making an important contribution to the unfolding revelation of the implications of natural law in the context of civil society.
Delete