Engaging the Faith in Our Times

Is There a Prayer for the President?

In a scene from the movie Fiddler on the Roof, the rabbi is asked an important question: "Is there a prayer for the Tsar?"  After some reflective thought, the rabbi raises his hands in the air and exclaims "Of course, there is a prayer for the Tsar." "May the Lord bless the Tsar, and keep him far away for us."

I propose that this prayer, in a somewhat modified form, be applied to our nation: "Lord bless the president, and keep him far away from us!"  I think the time has come for us to realize that our beloved country, under its current leadership, is moving quickly down a dark and, dare I say, dangerous road.

It would be difficult to document all that the Obama administration has enacted that either undermines, or goes directly against the Judeo-Christian values and principles upon which our country was established.  One of the more recent instances of this was the establishment of the so-called Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month in the United States. I quote the statement issued by the White House: "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."  

We have rightly taken pride in being a Christian nation "under God." Now, however these words no longer seem to fit; this reality is slipping away. There are however, many, hopefully millions, who still hold to the principles upon which our country was founded. The best of these principles find their source in the Scripture, especially the Gospels. During this time of radically shifting values and the erosion of foundational principles, we need to once again stand firmly upon Christ, who is the source of our lasting principles, and our true nourishment especially in times of trouble and unrest. Although we continue to pray for a "change of heart," as well as holding the office of the president in great respect, at this time we cannot count on our country's leadership to point the way.

I am reminded of the words of St. Peter when, filled with the Holy Spirit, he proclaimed to the people "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation" (Acts 2:40). Peter called the people to conversion. We too must seek ongoing conversion to Christ; a conversion that is deep and lasting.  I think of the words of John Paul II in his encyclical Mission of the Redeemer. In addressing the topic of conversion, John Paul writes:

"Conversion is a complete and sincere adherence to Christ and his Gospel through faith. Conversion is a gift of God, a work of the Blessed Trinity. It is the Spirit who opens people's hearts so that they can believe in Christ and confess him. From the outset, conversion is expressed in faith which is total and radical, and which neither limits nor hinders God's gift. At the same time, it gives rise to a dynamic and lifelong process which demands a continual turning away from 'life according to the flesh' to 'life according to the Spirit'" (MR 46).

In Fiddler on the Roof Tevye and his fellow Jews, in the small village of Anatevka, held on to their faith in God in the midst of great oppression from the Tsar and others. Let us follow not only their example, but especially the example of all the saints throughout the ages, and proclaim Christ with confidence, courage and charity, both in our words and in the witness of our lives.

Faith, Conversion and the American Way

For decades we in the United States have enjoyed the privilege of freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion. Recently however, those freedoms are increasingly coming under attack. If you follow the news as reported by various Catholic news agencies, such as Catholic Online or Catholic Culture you know what I mean. How do we respond to the way our American society is changing? The freedoms we once took for granted are now deteriorating before our very eyes.

In a certain sense, we in America have been spoiled over the past 50-60 years. Our freedoms have been a source of envy to others in countries less fortunate than our own. Now we are being put to the test - how deeply rooted is our Catholic faith? There is a passage from the Old Testament book of Sirach that comes to mind: "My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake him not; thus will your future be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; for in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humility. Trust God and he will help you" (Sir 2:1-6).

We are being tested in a number of ways. So-called abortion rights are being greatly expanded, while opposition is being squelched. The dignity of the human person and the family are continually being attacked, while anti-hate laws are being enacted to quiet any opposition. The Catholic Church herself is being attacked and belittled, as is the case in Connecticut and elsewhere.

Our natural inclination in the face of these attacks is anger. However, anger is rarely effective and can easily draw us into bitterness and resentment. The words of Scripture ring out to us "Be undisturbed in time of adversity... trust God and he will help you." It can be very difficult for us to follow this counsel. We have to dig deeply into our inner self, where God dwells and seek his strength - we must endure. "Come to me all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest" (Mt 11:28).

We really do not know how to respond to these tests, which will probably only get worse. Only in God can we find the strength and means to respond in a manner that, in some way, reflects God's presence in our words and actions. How often do we read in the Gospel how Christ responded or acted in ways that we did not expect or anticipate? Yet, Christ is our model; he is our example of holiness in the face of adversity and ridicule.

As our culture becomes more and more antagonistic towards Christianity, prayer and intimacy with Christ point the way to a true response. The American way, or the way of Christ? It is up to each of us to choose with greater conviction, and to follow our Master.   

North Dakota Posits Personhood in the Womb

On February 17, 2009, almost in time for Valentine’s Day, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed The Personhood of Children Act (House Resolution 1572), protecting the rights of all citizens from conception onwards. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Dan Ruby, passed by a vote of 51-41. The bill is being argued in the ND Senate as we speak.

In effect, the House sought to repair, better yet, reconnect two fundamental notions that were ruptured on January 22, 1973, in Roe v. Wade: personhood and when human life begins. Chief Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, and, in section IX.A, dealt with the legal definition of “person”:   

The appellee [D.A. Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas] and certain amici [friends of the court] argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment…. The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words…. But in nearly all these instances [where the term “person” is found in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments] the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

In the next breath (IX.B), Blackmun changed the subject to the beginning of human life. His conclusion—erroneous at the most microscopic, genetic level—changed human history for all time:

Texas argues that, apart from the 14th Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Emphasis added.)

But, Justice Blackman had obviously decided when human life did not begin, namely, at conception and, de facto, anytime thereafter up to the viability of the fetus (when, presumably, the State’s interest in the fetus would be “compelling” enough to trump the mother’s interest; cf. section X).

More than two years before Blackmun’s decision, an editorial appeared in California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association. The editor was looking into the future and could see that abortion would be part of society’s fabric. Under the apt title, “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society” (Vol. 113, No. 3, Sept. 1970), the writer mused:

Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected. (Emphasis added.)

In North Dakota, the old ethic had not been eradicated, and the people and their representatives rallied to posit personhood in the womb, via the law. "North Dakotans have gotten used to cold temperatures like -44 degrees, but they haven't gotten used to child-killing," said one resident.

HR 1572, in part: "For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." "This is very simply defining when life begins,” said Rep. Ruby, “and giving that life some protections under our Constitution—the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Out of the ashes caused by Roe v. Wade, rises the phoenix of personhood in the womb. If the North Dakota Senate follows the House, the 36-year old rupture between personhood and conception would be healed, at least in one state. To mix metaphors, what a mustard seed that would be.  

Sean Penn and Shame

Sean Penn recently won the Oscar for best actor in the movie, "Milk." He portrayed Harvey Milk, member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the first openly gay, non-incumbent man in the United States to win an election for public office. A year later, in the fall of 1978, Milk and Mayor George Mascone were assassinated by Dan White, a supervisor who had resigned, then wanted his job back, and was told no.

In his acceptance speech, Penn singled out supporters of Proposition 8: “…for those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone” (emphases added).

First, if there were hateful signs outside the Oscar’s venue, the sign carriers were interested in insults rather than the truth. The for-Prop-8 signs I saw prior to the election could have papered the walls of any kindergarten.

Second, Proposition 8 was for something, namely, the recognition of the meaning of marriage as a conjugal covenant between one man and one woman. Indeed, the inherent truth of marriage excludes all other possible partnerships, including same-sex unions, polygamy, and bestiality. And that’s because marriage, by its very nature, is different than any other kind of love. Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand says it well:

There is a widespread error, even in Catholic circles, that conjugal love is distinguished from love of friends or love of parents and children merely by its connection with the sensual sphere. Quite independent of sensuality, conjugal love in itself constitutes a completely new kind of love [that] involves a unique mutual giving of one’s self….

The difference between a man and a woman is a metaphysical one…. These two types, man and woman, have a unique capacity for complementing each other…. Marital love…can exist only between two types of the spiritual person, the male and the female, as only between them can this complementary character be found (Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love, pp. 5, 11-12).

Third, shame first came to be when sin caused a “constitutive break,” a “fundamental disquiet” between the first man and the first woman. In plain terms, shame was the result of Adam being able to look at Eve as an object rather than as a subject, and vice versa, a perception problem we’ve inherited. Feeling shame, therefore, is a signal that something is terribly wrong with what was meant to be wonderfully right. 

For John Paul II, shame both indicates a threat to a value (in this case, the inherent dignity of the beloved) and preserves this value interiorly (Theology of the Body, 28.6). In other words, shame is an internal, corrective shock, triggered by what is awry in our vision and actions relative to another.

Penn sees no shame in making marriage fit any relational role on the world stage. On the other hand, Prop 8 supporters are supposed to feel shame that they don’t have that kind of versatile, sophisticated imagination.

Verily, the truth is 180 degrees out from Penn’s tack. Knowing that, from the very beginning, marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman (Mt 19:1-8), real shame for us would be in choosing not to support a proposition like 8. 

   

President Obama and Catholicism

Everyone has probably heard by now that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama in the recent presidential election. This has caused many Catholics to scratch their heads in bewilderment… how could a Catholic in good conscience vote for him, with his past aggressive pro-abortion record?  Others, we may also suppose in good conscience, voted for the man.

 

Students have requested that I write a piece on Obama’s first month, or his first 50 days in office from a Catholic perspective. This would be a huge task. And since I am not an expert in economics, or politics, or even in American history, how to reasonably approach such a issue?

 

I have been thinking about this for about a week now and was still not quite sure how to address this.  Then I read an excellent speech by Archbishop Chaput of Denver on this very issue. I cannot recommend, highly enough, reading this speech – he addresses this very important issue with a clarity, courage and conviction that is rarely found among bishops today. The address can be found at Tolerance Is Not a Christian Virtue   Read it carefully.  I may return to write on this later, but for now, the Archbishop’s words are well worth your effort.

Catholic Politicians – Truism or Oxymoron

Have you ever experienced the astonishment and amazement many Catholics feel today over the statements of our so-called Catholic politicians? One such Catholic senator, who will remain un-named, last year made theological statements supporting her position on abortion. One blogger humorously referred to her as the “girl theologian.” Of course her theology was not even close to the teaching of the Catholic Church. She nonetheless proclaimed herself “as an ardent, practicing Catholic.”  How is one to think of such things? One well-known Catholic radio commentator expresses her frustration with, “I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they can call themselves Catholic.”  This indeed has many devoted Catholics scratching their heads in bewilderment.

 

An article that I recently read may shed some light on this modern day conundrum. 

 

In a lecture delivered at Harvard University on Catholicism and American Culture, Christopher Dawson stated the following: “It must be admitted that from the religious point of view [our American] pluralist type of society involves serious disadvantages. It tends to make religion a matter of secondary importance. It means that man’s first duty is not religious but political.” He goes on: “We do not ask whether he is a good Christian or a good Catholic, but whether he is a good citizen or a good American. If he is this, his religion is a matter that concerns only himself.” Although delivered in 1958, Mr. Dawson seems to have accurately described the current state of affairs of a vast majority of Catholic politicians today.

 

In essence, this describes a worldview that someone takes on. Our worldview could be described as the manner in which we view reality around us, on a day-to-day basis. Christopher Dawson makes the claim that in our pluralistic American society, it is quite difficult to be Catholic. I would imagine that someone running for political office—moreover, someone that has been elected and serves in the jungle of modern-day American politics—would find it very difficult to maintain a solid Catholic worldview.  This is not to excuse anyone. On the contrary, it calls for a careful evaluation on how well I am living the Catholic faith. Am I more American or Catholic?  I think this question is especially important for us today, not only in light of the growing divide between religion and society, but for the sake of the vibrancy of the Church in her ability to have a positive influence on the culture.

 

Mr. Dawson makes a keen observation with his critique of the dangers of American pluralism. In a positive and quite catechetical note he states:

 

On the other hand, a pluralistic society of this kind has certain compensating advantages for religion. It lays a greater weight of spiritual responsibility on the individual Christian. He can no longer afford to take his religion for granted. If he is to stand firm amid the shifting sands of democratic opinion, he must know where he stands and what he stands for. All of this involves a considerable intellectual as well as moral effort.