I
In_Spiration
Guest
That’s the headline and point of this excellent article published yesterday at the alt-right Front Porch Republic, my favorite take thus far on the topic surrounding President Obama’s anti-Catholic HHS mandate. Jerry Salyer, the author, offers a humble, gentle, yet profoundly-important criticism of Catholics’ overall strategy in this controversy – that is, the one carefully limiting almost the entire battle plan to a narrow and persistent promotion of mere “religious liberty,” especially as currently celebrated by our Fortnight for Freedom. Salyer sums up his main concern, as well as my own lingering thoughts, quite deftly.
In my view the contraception affair should be seen as opportunity rather than crisis, for it will have had a positive result if it forces Catholics to recognize the necessity of making a choice. Either we must somehow set ourselves apart from the corrupting influence of American society as it slides further and further away from the Church – call it the ghetto option, the catacomb option, the secessionist option, the Benedict option, the Amish option – or so far as possible we must actively seek to dislodge and replace liberalism’s decaying tenets with those of the Church. The first step is acknowledging that — no matter how many times George Bush may have repeated the word in his speeches — freedom is not the Good. So long as Catholic voters agree to be fettered by the phrase “separation of Church and State” and conservative Catholic politicians fear to run on explicitly Catholic principles, they are no different from President Kennedy. The faith which can be set aside before the voting booth or campaign or political office is no faith at all; it is a hobby. [Emphasis mine.]
While I clearly agree with the piece (hence the enormous post), it’s worth adding that I do definitely sympathize with the USCCB, which should never be thus compelled into the cut-throat world of polemical politics and mass media in order to protect its flocks from governmental intrusion on life, conscience, and property. The leaders of the Church in America (Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Lori, et al.) are understandably wary of letting journalists spin their conscientious efforts into a legally-doomed PR nightmare ridiculing “misogynistic pedophiles who still live in the 13th century and covertly wish to reduce women’s social status to a level of chattel slavery,” or something. So they seem to be strictly emphasizing our (supposed) First Amendment-guaranteed religious liberty in the United States, with the concentration almost always centering upon ensuring some Constitutionally-agreeable meaning and scope of the term ‘religion,’ while often positively denying that there’s anything more to their goals or worries.
But the trouble is that we are then failing to address, if not actively fleeing, the real root of the complicated problem at hand, one that’s been lurking for centuries without any internal competition. A huge chunk of that trouble is liberalism itself; and the reason it’s so sacredly off-limits to public criticism is the fact we’ve lately been boxed into the idea that only two viable ideological options exist for our country: either (1) left-liberalism, otherwise known as “Democratic liberalism,” or else (2) right-liberalism, i.e., “Republican conservatism.” In reality, (1) is Egalitarian Leftism, an economically-, morally-bankrupt front for expanding federal government through a centralized tyranny of legally-forced “equality;” while remaining on the “other” side of the divide (to be honest, it’s basically just the other, phony face of the exact same, first side, but I mean what can ya do?), (2) is really Neo-“Conservatism”, that socially-, morally-negotiated front for expanding consumerist corporatism and imperialist globalism through war-mongering foreign policy. Both feed the State and starve the Church.
Needless to say, neither “alternative” is considered very promising to many informed Catholics, or perhaps to any broad majority of the citizenry. And possibly the most frustrating fact of it all is how Rome’s teachings and a lot of its Catholic political philosophy, rich as they are with balanced, highly-nuanced social doctrine (e.g., subsidiarity, Distributism, etc.), actually possess the strongest theoretical and historical bases for declaring what’s wrong and pronouncing precisely what can fix it. But instead we’re again setting our sights quite dismally on but one more compromise with the long-standing, title-holding juggernaut known as Modernism, all in favor of one expedient defensive maneuver, waged on philosophically-foreign grounds under the enemy’s terms and conditions, that might – pending future judicial bail out – might temporarily quarantine one of a giant mass of systematically-linked threats.
It’s rather upsetting that the foremost authority in the world regarding human dignity and virtue is somewhat shying away from a major opportunity to enlighten lost souls about ubiquitous mortal sin. One could maybe maintain that civil-minded laymen should refrain from providing that warning or defending that moral stance whenever it reasonably can be predicted to needlessly confuse and scare away (apparent) potential converts or influential (alleged) allies. However, since the explication and preservation of Catholic doctrines is a far greater requirement of our clergy, I don’t see how hiding the matter of contraception could be at all prudently avoidable for them given their station. I couldn’t help but notice, when I watched the Congressional hearing over it, that despite several queries into the Catholic position, it appeared that Archbishop Lori would not confidently issue the hard answer that, yes, as Catholics we do absolutely condemn “birth control” usage itself, not simply its paid provision – both for Catholics and for non-Catholics alike – regardless of whether or not a person understands or agrees with us about its depravity (as ethics, so it goes, isn’t actually relative to personal opinion or objectively contingent upon subjective knowledge). How can we be successful at future evangelization if we look publicly ashamed of our very own established beliefs any time some manipulative ideologue rhetorically insinuates that we surely aren’t that “antiquated”, “radical” and/or “extreme”? We lose if we play on their field and let them lay all the boundary lines for every debate.
Arguably, a sole focus on liberty either causes or overtly betrays a widespread, unbecoming fear on our part, a fear of boldly proclaiming a certain unpopular ethical truth to a highly-resistant American public in need of unabashed, firmly-applied tough love: that, according to the Catholic Church, all sexual uses of artificial contraception constitute a gravely-immoral abomination against human nature, and so any such practice is unacceptable as well as destructive for individuals, families, and societies. Freedom is properly defined not as autonomy but as an ability to realize the good, to choose goodness, in a private or public context. Therefore, truth and virtue maximize freedom, and the most genuine form of religious freedom is indeed conceived as an ability to know and practice true religion well – in other words, if we’re honestly going to determine its essential criteria, at the end of the day, most accurately speaking: the highest standard for real religious freedom entails the ability to be a good Catholic, no? (Salyer doesn’t indicate whether or not he believes there at some point ought to be an imposed ban on selling contraceptives, and in fact, if anything, that’s the real secondary issue that could responsibly be left in the background for further discussion.)
Anyway, on the bright side, Salyer did introduce me to a characteristically brilliant insight from our old friend Gilbert Keith, which I think rightly diagnoses our late-stage Western malaise.
Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about “liberty”; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “progress”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “education”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.
The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.” That is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.” He says, “Away with all your old moral formulae; I am for progress.” This, logically stated, means, “Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.” He says, “Neither in religion nor morality my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.” This, clearly expressed, means, “We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”
I suppose at this time what I’m wondering is whether anyone else is very concerned about our tactics as Catholics in this classic rendition of Church vs. State. Yet if an opinion is excessively ungrateful, defeatist or anything like that toward the Church or Her authorities, please tactfully tone it down or refrain from sharing it. (On that note, I’d like to clarify: I’m still behind the bishops and enthusiastic over the action they’re taking with us. I agree we’re progressing on a positive track, but just can’t help mention what I see as potentially an even better one. Plus, it’s of course possible that our bishops plan to shift directions eventually, and they doubtless have ruminated on this more and with more applicable info than any of us have.)
In my view the contraception affair should be seen as opportunity rather than crisis, for it will have had a positive result if it forces Catholics to recognize the necessity of making a choice. Either we must somehow set ourselves apart from the corrupting influence of American society as it slides further and further away from the Church – call it the ghetto option, the catacomb option, the secessionist option, the Benedict option, the Amish option – or so far as possible we must actively seek to dislodge and replace liberalism’s decaying tenets with those of the Church. The first step is acknowledging that — no matter how many times George Bush may have repeated the word in his speeches — freedom is not the Good. So long as Catholic voters agree to be fettered by the phrase “separation of Church and State” and conservative Catholic politicians fear to run on explicitly Catholic principles, they are no different from President Kennedy. The faith which can be set aside before the voting booth or campaign or political office is no faith at all; it is a hobby. [Emphasis mine.]
While I clearly agree with the piece (hence the enormous post), it’s worth adding that I do definitely sympathize with the USCCB, which should never be thus compelled into the cut-throat world of polemical politics and mass media in order to protect its flocks from governmental intrusion on life, conscience, and property. The leaders of the Church in America (Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Lori, et al.) are understandably wary of letting journalists spin their conscientious efforts into a legally-doomed PR nightmare ridiculing “misogynistic pedophiles who still live in the 13th century and covertly wish to reduce women’s social status to a level of chattel slavery,” or something. So they seem to be strictly emphasizing our (supposed) First Amendment-guaranteed religious liberty in the United States, with the concentration almost always centering upon ensuring some Constitutionally-agreeable meaning and scope of the term ‘religion,’ while often positively denying that there’s anything more to their goals or worries.
But the trouble is that we are then failing to address, if not actively fleeing, the real root of the complicated problem at hand, one that’s been lurking for centuries without any internal competition. A huge chunk of that trouble is liberalism itself; and the reason it’s so sacredly off-limits to public criticism is the fact we’ve lately been boxed into the idea that only two viable ideological options exist for our country: either (1) left-liberalism, otherwise known as “Democratic liberalism,” or else (2) right-liberalism, i.e., “Republican conservatism.” In reality, (1) is Egalitarian Leftism, an economically-, morally-bankrupt front for expanding federal government through a centralized tyranny of legally-forced “equality;” while remaining on the “other” side of the divide (to be honest, it’s basically just the other, phony face of the exact same, first side, but I mean what can ya do?), (2) is really Neo-“Conservatism”, that socially-, morally-negotiated front for expanding consumerist corporatism and imperialist globalism through war-mongering foreign policy. Both feed the State and starve the Church.
Needless to say, neither “alternative” is considered very promising to many informed Catholics, or perhaps to any broad majority of the citizenry. And possibly the most frustrating fact of it all is how Rome’s teachings and a lot of its Catholic political philosophy, rich as they are with balanced, highly-nuanced social doctrine (e.g., subsidiarity, Distributism, etc.), actually possess the strongest theoretical and historical bases for declaring what’s wrong and pronouncing precisely what can fix it. But instead we’re again setting our sights quite dismally on but one more compromise with the long-standing, title-holding juggernaut known as Modernism, all in favor of one expedient defensive maneuver, waged on philosophically-foreign grounds under the enemy’s terms and conditions, that might – pending future judicial bail out – might temporarily quarantine one of a giant mass of systematically-linked threats.
It’s rather upsetting that the foremost authority in the world regarding human dignity and virtue is somewhat shying away from a major opportunity to enlighten lost souls about ubiquitous mortal sin. One could maybe maintain that civil-minded laymen should refrain from providing that warning or defending that moral stance whenever it reasonably can be predicted to needlessly confuse and scare away (apparent) potential converts or influential (alleged) allies. However, since the explication and preservation of Catholic doctrines is a far greater requirement of our clergy, I don’t see how hiding the matter of contraception could be at all prudently avoidable for them given their station. I couldn’t help but notice, when I watched the Congressional hearing over it, that despite several queries into the Catholic position, it appeared that Archbishop Lori would not confidently issue the hard answer that, yes, as Catholics we do absolutely condemn “birth control” usage itself, not simply its paid provision – both for Catholics and for non-Catholics alike – regardless of whether or not a person understands or agrees with us about its depravity (as ethics, so it goes, isn’t actually relative to personal opinion or objectively contingent upon subjective knowledge). How can we be successful at future evangelization if we look publicly ashamed of our very own established beliefs any time some manipulative ideologue rhetorically insinuates that we surely aren’t that “antiquated”, “radical” and/or “extreme”? We lose if we play on their field and let them lay all the boundary lines for every debate.
Arguably, a sole focus on liberty either causes or overtly betrays a widespread, unbecoming fear on our part, a fear of boldly proclaiming a certain unpopular ethical truth to a highly-resistant American public in need of unabashed, firmly-applied tough love: that, according to the Catholic Church, all sexual uses of artificial contraception constitute a gravely-immoral abomination against human nature, and so any such practice is unacceptable as well as destructive for individuals, families, and societies. Freedom is properly defined not as autonomy but as an ability to realize the good, to choose goodness, in a private or public context. Therefore, truth and virtue maximize freedom, and the most genuine form of religious freedom is indeed conceived as an ability to know and practice true religion well – in other words, if we’re honestly going to determine its essential criteria, at the end of the day, most accurately speaking: the highest standard for real religious freedom entails the ability to be a good Catholic, no? (Salyer doesn’t indicate whether or not he believes there at some point ought to be an imposed ban on selling contraceptives, and in fact, if anything, that’s the real secondary issue that could responsibly be left in the background for further discussion.)
Anyway, on the bright side, Salyer did introduce me to a characteristically brilliant insight from our old friend Gilbert Keith, which I think rightly diagnoses our late-stage Western malaise.
Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about “liberty”; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “progress”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “education”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.
The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.” That is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.” He says, “Away with all your old moral formulae; I am for progress.” This, logically stated, means, “Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.” He says, “Neither in religion nor morality my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.” This, clearly expressed, means, “We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”
I suppose at this time what I’m wondering is whether anyone else is very concerned about our tactics as Catholics in this classic rendition of Church vs. State. Yet if an opinion is excessively ungrateful, defeatist or anything like that toward the Church or Her authorities, please tactfully tone it down or refrain from sharing it. (On that note, I’d like to clarify: I’m still behind the bishops and enthusiastic over the action they’re taking with us. I agree we’re progressing on a positive track, but just can’t help mention what I see as potentially an even better one. Plus, it’s of course possible that our bishops plan to shift directions eventually, and they doubtless have ruminated on this more and with more applicable info than any of us have.)