The Human Face of Suffering

About a week ago, I wrote on a article that I read from Slate.com.  Having never really been to this site, I have now found myself with the same sort of reaction one has to a horrible car accident ... I just have to look.  On the bright side, I think that any conservative blogger could find a lifetime of material on which to comment in but a few short days of perusing Slate’s archives.

Yesterday, there appeared a very emotional piece by a mother of a child with Tay-Sachs.  My heart and prayers go out to this woman - I can’t even begin to imagine the daily struggles and emotional roller-coasters that she goes through.  Yet there is something terribly unsettling with her story.

Her opening paragraphs read:

“This week my son turned blue, and for 30 terrifying seconds, stopped breathing. Called an "apnea seizure," this is one stage in the progression of Tay-Sachs, the genetic disease Ronan was born with and will die of, but not before he suffers from these and other kinds of seizures and is finally plunged into a completely vegetative state. Nearly two years old, he is already blind, paralyzed, and increasingly nonresponsive. I expect his death to happen this year, and this week's seizure only highlighted the fact that it could happen at any moment—while I'm at work, at the hair salon, at the grocery store. I love my son more than any person in the world and his life is of utmost value to me. I don't regret a single minute of this parenting journey, even though I wake up every morning with my heart breaking, feeling the impending dread of his imminent death. This is one set of absolute truths.

Here's another: If I had known Ronan had Tay-Sachs (I met with two genetic counselors and had every standard prenatal test available to me, including the one for Tay-Sachs, which did not detect my rare mutation, and therefore I waived the test at my CVS procedure), I would have found out what the disease meant for my then unborn child; I would have talked to parents who are raising (and burying) children with this disease, and then I would have had an abortion. Without question and without regret, although this would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision. I'm so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he'd never been born; no person should suffer in this way—daily seizures, blindness, lack of movement, inability to swallow, a devastated brain—with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive.”

I want to try very hard to not be callous in my comment, but rather pastoral in the best sense of the word.  As I stated from the beginning, this woman’s story is clearly one of great suffering.

That being said, what is the proverbial “missing piece” from this philosophy?  I can think of three such pieces that are worth considering.

1.  Suffering is Redemptive
There is something drastically “new” about the Christian take on suffering.  If we define suffering as that gap between desire and reality (or between what we want and what we have), the ancient east and the modern west have opposite takes on how to close the gap.  The ancient east suggests solving the problem by eliminating desires.  According to Peter Kreeft:

“We suffer because of the gap between what we want and what we have. This gap is created by our dissatisfaction, our wanting to get what we do not have or wanting to keep what we do have (e.g., life, which causes fear of death). Thus desire is the villain for Buddha, the cause of all suffering.”

The modern west takes an opposite approach: we attempt to eliminate suffering by bringing what we have up to the level of what we want.  This is true in both modern medicine and modern economics.

Although both work in opposite directions, the goal is the same:  to eliminate suffering.

Christianity, through the Paschal mystery, takes a radically new approach: it redeems suffering and thus allows us to see it as a value in and of itself.  As Christians, we are called to embrace suffering for the redemption of ourselves and of the world.  I am reminded of the scene from Passion of the Christ where the Lord has hold of his cross and the soldiers ridicule him saying, “Look, he embraces his cross!”


2.  God is the Author of Life - and the Soul is Eternal

It seems to me that this is an essential tenant of the Christian faith.  The very first thing we learn about our nature from the Book of Genesis is that we are created.  In other words, we are not our own, and nor are we each other’s.  God is the author of life, and only God can decide when “it is time” (for lack of a better phrase).  None of us ever wants to see an innocent child suffer to the degree that this mother has had to endure, yet even in these difficult cases, it is not our decision to make.  Let us not forget, however, that the human soul is immortal.  It has an existence well beyond the confines of time.  Further, we know for certain that a baptized child not yet of the age of reason will be welcomed into Heaven - so whatever this child suffers here on earth, it will pale in comparison to the joy he will experience when standing for eternity face to face with the Living God.

There is actually something very laudable with the mother’s desire that “no person should suffer in this way.”  While we embrace our own suffering, we also should work to a certain extent to minimize the suffering in others.  Yet the line is crossed when first things fail to be kept first.  The “first thing” in this case is the notion that God is the only one who takes the blessed soul from their suffering and welcomes them into eternal life.


3.  God’s Ways are not Our Ways

This is so impossible to fully understand, and every one of us is guilty of crying out for justice, mercy, or some seemingly illogical combination of the two when faced with the hardest moments of our time here on earth.  Few of us will experience moments as challenging as this mother’s trials, and virtually none of us will have to undergo the pain experienced by her son.  Yet as hard as it is to grasp, the truth haunts us in the quiet of our hearts: as finite beings we are incapable of seeing the “whole picture.”  We do not yet know everything that God has planned for both the world and for a particular individual.  Only when it is all said and done, and we are granted the opportunity to “understand the whole” will we be able to find true solace in the events of this world.

What is curious about this point is that it is either a source of great consolation or bitter confusion.  One either sees in the mystery of a plan not-yet-fulfilled a God who is a great architect that ever so slowly reveals His design, or one sees a tyrannical dictator who hides the truth from his subjects.  It all comes down to the fundamental lens through which one sees the drama of life.

Regardless, my heart goes out to this woman. In fact, I can agree with her on not just one, but both of her points, properly understood.  As such, I agree that they are no mutually exclusive.  I believe with everything I am that she is telling the truth when she says, “I love my son more than any person in the world and his life is of utmost value to me. I don't regret a single minute of this parenting journey, even though I wake up every morning with my heart breaking, feeling the impending dread of his imminent death.”  I also believe that she deeply wishes her poor innocent son would not have to endure the suffering that he has already had to go through let alone that which is to come.  Moreover, I too wish that I had it in my power to save him from any more suffering in his life.  In fact, I even agree that his “life” would be better if he were already in the presence of God.  Nevertheless, I cannot agree that taking a life of which we are not free to take, making a choice that we are not free to make, is a viable option towards such an end.  The end can never justify the means.

I have already decided to dedicate a part of my Lenten spiritual reading and preparation to both this mother and her very blessed child, and I encourage others to do the same.  Through all the suffering, it is clear that his mother as an authentic love for him, and that is something that many of our “healthy” children lack so desperately.

Lenten Reading and the Liturgy of the Hours

With Lent less than twenty-four hours away, some might still be looking for either extra opportunities for prayer or texts that can serve as spiritual reading. For whatever reason, the topic of the Liturgy of the Hours seems to have come up in recent circles as of late. Allow me to humbly offer this as a single solution to Lenten opportunities for both prayer and spiritual reading.

It always amazes me how few people are even aware of the Liturgy of the Hours. After all, one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to make the Hours more accessible to the laity. Moreover, as few people are aware of the Hours, there are even fewer that understand their importance in the life of the Church. In this short post I want to dispel three myths and give a summary of each hour.

Myth One. The Liturgy of the Hours is only for clergy.

While clergy have a canonical obligation pray the Divine Office (another name for the Liturgy of the Hours), this public prayer of the Church has always been recommended to any member of the Faithful who is capable of praying it. The Second Vatican Council brought a renewed emphasis on the spiritual benefits that can be bestowed on the laity when they join the Church in her public pray.

Myth Two. The Liturgy of the hours is simply one pray option among many.

It is true that for the laity the Liturgy of the Hours is not required, and thus it often is considered "one option among many." It is listed along side things like the rosary and lectio divina. Taking nothing away from the holy merits of these, the Liturgy of the Hours hold a pride of place among all forms of prayer. The simple reason for this is that the Liturgy of the Hours is Liturgy. Liturgy is the public prayer of the Church, which includes not only the Church Militant (the Church here on earth), but also the Church Suffering (the Church in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (The Church in Heaven). The only forms of Liturgy are (1) the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (2) the prayers that accompany the other Sacraments of the Church, and (3) the Liturgy of the Hours. When a member of God's faithful prayer the Liturgy of the Hours, he or she is united in prayer with the Church as a whole (including the Saints and Angles in heaven and even Christ himself). Moreover, because the Liturgy is one, praying the Divine Office has an inseparable connection with the Mass and the other Sacraments. As laudable and holy as the rosary is (and please don't misunderstand me: saying the rosary is essential in our time), the rosary is not Liturgy but a private devotion. The Divine Office is part of the public pray of the Church.

Myth Three. The publication Magnificat is an appropriate substitute for the Liturgy of the Hours.

The magazine Magnificat is a great publication from the Dominicans. For those who are unaware, the magazine presents an abbreviated form of the Liturgy of the Hours (including Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Night Prayer). I recommend the publication without reservation. The spiritual commentaries alone make it worth subscribing, not to mention the fact that the magazine contains all of the daily Mass readings and prayers. However, the prayer for morning and evening given in the magazine are not liturgy and thus are quite distinct from the actual Divine Office. Not only are the prayers abbreviated, but the Psalms and readings are often not excerpts from the actual Liturgy of the Hours for that day. Thus, while certainly a laudable and beneficial form of prayer, Magnificat is not the official public prayer of the Church, and therefore not Liturgy.

After dispelling those myths, what then is the Liturgy of the Hours? As stated above, it is the public prayer of the Church that accompanies the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the other Sacraments. More specifically it is the Church's way of sanctifying the entire day. It is an opportunity to pause at various points during the day to give God His just due in prayer and an opportunity to do so in union with the Pope and the entire Church. Indeed, in a certain way, Christ himself is praying the Divine Office along side his bride.

There are five hours of prayer in the Divine Office:

Office of Readings.

This is probably one of the most hidden treasures in the Church. People are constantly looking for (1) a "schedule" of Biblical readings throughout the year and (2) spiritual commentaries. Many Protestant "devotionals" adopt this format in order to satisfy this double desire. The Office of Readings, which ideally is the first hour of the day, though it is the one hour that can migrate to different times, offers the original solution to this natural desire. It begins with a hymn, which can be sung if the hour is being said in groups, or simply recited. After the hymn, there are three Psalms to pray. Following the Psalms, the is a lengthy passage from Scripture, one for each day of the year. The second reading is non-scriptural and contains appropriate commentary from various sources including the Fathers of the Church, the writings of the Saints, and magisterial documents. After the two readings, which provide enough material for at least a day of reflection, there is a closing prayer. (On solemnities on will also include a recitation of the Te Deum hymn.)

Morning Prayer.

Morning prayer, together with Evening Prayer, is one of the two principal hours of the day. In other words, if you only have time to prayer a few of the hours, this should be one of them. Morning prayer consists of a hymn, three Psalms (actually one of them is an Old Testament canticle that is "Psalm-like" is form), a short Scriptural Reading, the recitation of the Canticle of Zechariah (Luke 1:68-79), Intercessions, and a Closing Prayer.

Daytime Prayer.

Daytime prayer is the shortest of all of the hours. In private recitation it can take as little as five or ten minutes. It consists of a short hymn, three Psalms, a very short Scriptural Reading, and a Closing Prayer. It is intended as a short pause during the day to remember to give thanks and praise to God. The Church leaves room for this prayer to be said at three times throughout the day (midmorning, noon, and mid-afternoon).

Evening Prayer.

This is the other principal hour of the day, together with Morning Prayer. It has an identical format as Morning Prayer with the exception that the Old Testament Canticle is replaced with a New Testament Canticle, and the Canticle of Zechariah is replaced with the Magnificat (Canticle of Mary) from Luke 1:46-55.

Night Prayer.

Night prayer is to be the last hour of the day. It is intended to provide the faithful with an opportunity to reflect upon the day and to give God his last due before retiring to sleep. It begins with an examination of conscience and the recitation of the Confiteor ("I confess to almighty God..."). There follows a hymn, one psalm (or two shorter psalms), a brief Scriptural Reading, the Canticle of Simeon (Luke 2:29-32), a Closing Prayer, and a Marian antiphon (e.g., the Salve Regina, Ave Maria, etc.). The Psalmody for the other hours follows a four week cycle, but the cycle for Night Prayer is only one week. For this reason, we have found this hour particularly suited to young children. After a few months of reciting this, many of our children had most if not all of the Psalms memorized.

Jumping in to every hour of the day can be daunting at first, but easing one's way in by adopting the two principal hours (Morning and Evening) is not all too demanding. I see two major benefits to praying the Liturgy of the Hours. The first is the sanctification of the day. By pausing at various points throughout the day (and having a structured form of prayer already set), one is able to better remain in the presence of God more consistently. The main tool of prayer employed, as can be seen in the above descriptions, is the Psalms. The Psalms have always been seen as the "Prayer Book" of the Bible, and by praying the Hours, one is engulfed in the Book of Psalms. With the grace of God, when the time comes to depart from this world, may we die, like our Lord, with the words of the Psalms on our lips. The second benefit of praying the Hours is being united to the rhythm of the Church throughout the year. On days that are celebrations of Saints, solemnities, or other liturgical events, the readings and prayers are tailored to those celebrations. Often the closing prayer (or "Collect") is the same prayer as the Opening Collect heard at Mass for that day. When one becomes familiar with and absorbed in these prayers, one comes to better understand (1) why they are Liturgy and (2) how they are united to the rest of the Church's Liturgy, most especially the Sacrifice of the Mass. For families, this is the one form of Liturgy that can be brought into the home. It is very powerful indeed to know that when my wife and children prayer with me Evening Prayer or Night Prayer, we are participating in the actual Liturgy of Christ and his Church. This has allowed me to understand the concept of "Domestic Church" on a whole new level.

I opened this entry by reminding us that Lent begins tomorrow. For people who are still deciding on what to do for a Lenten prayer activity, I would encourage you to consider taking up one of more of the Hours. If you do not yet own a Breviary (the book(s) that contain(s) the Divine Office), it is available for free online*. While I certainly recommend the two principal hours first and foremost, there is a part of me that can't help but recommending the Office of Readings especially for Lent. People are always asking me for good spiritual material for Lenten Reading. It seems to me that the Church has already provided it for us in the form of the Office of Readings. At the very least, let me offer the following challenges.

(1) If you have never heard of or are not at all familiar with the Liturgy of the Hours, glance at its format and try praying it a couple of times a week for Lent.

(2) If you have become accustomed to praying out of the Magnificat magazine, consider seeing that as an introduction to the form of prayer involved in the Divine Office and make that next step to praying the actual Liturgy of the Hours with the confidence that you will then be united to the public prayer of Christ and his Church.

Liturgical Adjustments

The following appeared in our bulletin this weekend,

“With the beginning of Lent, the Liturgy Committee would like to address and explain to everyone a few small adjustments we will be making in our liturgies.  As I’m sure you have noticed, we have eliminated the position of Commentator over the past year or so.  Beginning Ash Wednesday, we will also eliminate the announced “greetings,” which currently begin Mass.  Subsequently, we will begin Mass simply by ringing the bell to signal a period of Sacred Silence, followed by a second ring, which will signal that start of the opening hymn.   We now have two hymn board in the front of the church.  The one of the left side indicates the hymns for the day.  The one on the right side indicates the numbers for the parts of the Mass as found in the Music Issue.  As a result, it is no longer necessary to break the flow of our liturgy to announce hymn numbers.  The musical accompaniment will begin and the Cantor/Choir will start the assembly at the proper place.  Our intention is to provide a more prayerful, integrated liturgy, which will flow as smoothly as possible.”

I applaud our parish in taking these steps.  The liturgy, after all, is a great drama into which we are inserted.  It always strikes me as a jarring interruption to the natural flow to pause and announce “instructions” of sorts.  Imagine being at a play in which the stage director periodically yelled out instructions to the actors, or perhaps even to the audience, “Turn your heads now to the left side of the stage to observe the entrance of the lead actress.”

Particularly curious to me has been the announcement that has called for a “moment of sacred silence.”  Most readers here will have heard Pope Benedict’s quote from Spirit of the Liturgy, in which he says that spontaneous applause in the liturgy is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has been lost.  Something similar has always come to mind when hearing “sacred silence” specifically called for: whenever a parish feels the need to announce moments of sacred silence, it is a sure sign the the liturgy has not organically provided for it.

As for the position of Commentator, its place in the liturgical life of the Church has always eluded me.  Virtually every “line” given to commentators tends to turn the congregation’s attention to people who are involved in the liturgy rather than to God.  I am happy to see this position and its corresponding announcements vanish from the start of the liturgy.

There are a few other small and not-so-small things that I could recommend to aid the integrity and natural flow of the liturgy.  The first is the moving of the “announcements.”  First, it would great if parishes would limit these to only those absolutely essential.  Yet even for those, placing them after communion seems to break up the continuity of the communion rite and risks diminishing the importance of the blessing and dismissal and its connection to the rest of the liturgy.  If announcements must be done, having the priest mention them at the start of the homily (or end I suppose) seems to work much better.  Of course, the objection will be that the homily is for teaching and preaching and not for announcements, but then again, the liturgy as a whole is for participating in the Holy Sacrifice of Christ rather than advertising parish events.  In other words, if reading announcements at the homily interrupts what the homily is about, does it not do the same for the communion rite and the dismissal?  If I had my way, I would eliminate them altogether, but given that most parishes still feel the need to inform the congregation of various happenings, there seems to be less interruption to the flow of Mass if such announcements happen during the homily.  Think about it - the homily is the only part of Mass that is rightfully spoken in the vernacular.  (I mean this here in the most general sense of the word, not simply as a distinction between Latin and English.)  It is not a scripted moment, and therefore its language will be less ornate.  It is also the part of the Mass that is very much for the people.  The intention of the priest is to break open the Scriptures for the people and on the level of the people.  This is why placing announcements here is less of a jarring break than would be otherwise.  There is less of a linguistic discontinuity.

The second suggestion is to eliminate things like the Children’s Removal from the Liturgy.  Of course, the interruption to the flow of the liturgy is not the only issue involved here, and I don’t intend to repeat what I have said elsewhere.  Yet the fact is that it provides two quite obvious interruptions.  The first is the dismissal of the children itself.  Because the action is not foreseen by the liturgical rubrics, it should come as no surprise that the dismissal and accompanying blessing is often ad libbed and inserted right into the middle of the opening rite.  Yet there is a second interruption when the children return, often unregulated, to the church.  Most parishes try to time this during the Offertory so that it is less obvious, but more than once I have seen the group returning during the Sanctus, or worse, during the consecration itself.

Finally, and I recognize that this is a stretch in most parishes, I would recommend replacing the “Opening Hymn,” which under the new translation of the GIRM seems to have no mention  in the rubrics, with the Proper chant, called the Introit, be it in Latin or in English.  The structure of a chant is such that it leads nicely into the Sign of the Cross and the Penitential Rite.  Chants, by their very nature, are unmetered and give the listener the experience of resting in eternal realities (which, of course, is precisely what the Mass entails).  A hymn, by contrast, is a metered set of “beats” marching to a conclusion.  In this way, hymns are very “temporal,” which is the opposite of “eternal.”  While such a temporal march could possibly play a role in the recessional, it seems very out of place in the processional.  What is the hymn “marching towards” in the processional?  In fact, at its “end” we find not an end, but the beginning of the sacred action.  The often upbeat and “peppy” hymn concludes in the solemn profession of our sins.  The discontinuity is apparent, and whether individuals know it or not, I think this might be why many priests insert a greeting of sorts after the Sign of the Cross.  It just doesn’t seem “natural” to go from a metered structure into the Penitential rite.

All of my suggestions aside, I can’t help but re-offer compliments to my parish for implementing the changes in its “Liturgical Adjustments.”  These are small steps, but important ones nonetheless.  Continuity in the Sacred Action is critical for actual participation of the faithful.  Of course I can’t help but thinking that the new language in the Mass has somehow prompted more than one parish to look again at the liturgy and its presentation.  A more formal language will, over time, cause us to treat the liturgy with the dignity it deserves.  Kudos to our Liturgy Committee for beginning this process.

I Think its Pope Benedict

From StatCounter ... I think its Pope Benedict, what do you think?

The Inconsistency of the Left and Required Virginia Ultrasounds

Okay, to be fair, I think this goes both way in American politics.  I’ve always said that everyone is a fiscal conservative until it is “their cause” that gets defunded, and everyone is a fiscal liberal until it is “their tax rate” that gets increased.

Nevertheless, some things ooze such inconsistency that it is almost laughable.  As many are aware, the Virginia state legislature recent passed a bill that requires a woman to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion.  As you can imagine, the pro-abortion constituency is out in full force over such a perceived “injustice.”  Now, call me crazy, but it seems that such a requirement should at least implicitly be considered under “informed consent.”  And besides, if those on the pro-abortion side are so sure that the fetus growing inside the womb is really just a mass of tissue, then there should be nothing to worry about, right?  Let us not be fooled here - the objection to the ultrasound has nothing to do with the requirement itself - it has much more to do with the fear that this just may actually convince more women that the baby growing inside them actually is a life.

At any rate, an article appeared on Slate.com by Dahlia Lithwick last Thursday that would have had me falling off the couch in hysterics had it not been meant to be actually taken seriously.  It was a great example of how the line between laughter and tears is often fine indeed when reading liberal commentaries.

The first laughable/cry-able moment came when the author implied ... no wait, she flat out said it ... that such a requirement constitutes an act of rape:

“[This] means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure ... the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.”

Okay, now let’s first note that no-one is forcing any woman to have such an ultra sound; the law merely provides such an action as a pre-requisite for the abortion procedure.  Any woman could alway opt not to have the abortion, and consequently be spare the “violation” of the ultrasound.  The logic here is intellectually dishonest at best, and manipulative at worst.  Under the same logic, we could object to any medical pre-requisite.  Besides, and I am happy to be correct on this, in the event that the individual decides to proceed with the abortion, is not penetration inevitable?  In fact, one could argue that the ultrasound is not a separate procedure but rather the first step in the abortion.

The argument continued:

“Evidently the right of conscience for doctors who oppose abortion are a matter of grave national concern. The ethical and professional obligations of physicians who would merely like to perform their jobs without physically violating their own patients are, however, immaterial.”

So here we have it ... the left refuses to admit that the recent HHS mandate is a violation of conscience for individual business owners and religious organizations, they often even want to eliminate a Catholic hospital’s right to refuse abortion services based on conscientious objections, but now all of a sudden conscience should be a part of the conversation.

Lithwick goes on,

“Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument about the obscene government overreach that is the individual mandate in President Obama’s health care law. Yet physical intrusion by government into the [body] of a pregnant woman is so urgently needed that the woman herself should be forced to pay for the privilege.”

Another inconsistency: the Virginia law is a clear overreach of government by requiring an individual to pay to a procedure to which they conscientiously object, yet the ability of the Catholic Church to opt out of paying for practices that they find morally incompatible with its faith is just plain silly.  Am I understanding this right?

Finally,

“You can shame and violate women, while couching it in the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s gift that keeps on giving—his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. That opinion upheld Congress’ partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds that (although there was no real evidence to support this assumption) some women who have abortions will suffer "severe depression" and “regrets” if they aren’t made to understand the implications of what they have done.”

And at the end of the article,

“Abortion is still legal in America. Physically invading a woman’s body against her will still isn’t. Let’s not casually pass laws that upend both principles in the name of helping women make better choices.”

So, as is commonly stated, nationally legalized abortion is the “law of the land,” so while it is okay for you to personally object to the practice, please don’t try to push that belief on others.  However, even thought the same Court has made the ability of the States to prevent partial-birth abortion the “law of the land” ... well, in that case they were just plain wrong.

So which is it, my dear leftist friends?  Is conscientious objection important or isn’t it?  Should individuals be required to pay for procedures they find objectionable or shouldn’t they?  Does the “law of the land” matter or doesn’t it?  It seems to me that the answer depends greatly on the ideology at hand, which in this case is the perceived “right” to abortion on demand.  In other words, we must accept a priori the right to abortion, and then we use any and all arguments available to defend that decision, even if it means speaking out of both side of the mouth at times.

Now, in fairness, it could be asked whether the political right is being just as inconsistent in all three arguments.  Whether this is true or not I leave up to political commentators.  For my own part, I submit that the Catholic position has no such inconsistencies, and here is why.  First, we don’t ground our positions in the law of the land or conscience seen as an unfettered freedom to relieve one’s self from any and all acts.  Rather, we ground our positions in natural law and conscience seen as the freedom to pursue truth and goodness.  Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion is a clear violation of his or her right to act in a way consistent with a belief system.  The act itself is the violation - the Catholic finds the act objectively immoral.  It is not that a Catholic doctor wants to perform abortions in some cases and not in others, it is that he or she never wants to perform them. In requiring an ultrasound for a woman seeking abortions, what act is being found objectively immoral?  Correct me if I am wrong, but an ultrasound, whether external or internal, is a perfectly acceptable medical procedure by both the left and the right.  

Second, from a Catholic position, the natural law it the governing principle, not the “law of the land.”  Natural law, inscribed on everyone’s heart, deeply suggests that the taking of a life is intrinsically immoral.  Science has shown over and over again that the “mass of tissue” in the womb of a mother is a life.  Even rudimentary philosophy says that it is a human life.  But returning to the matter of conscience, if we understand that freedom of conscience does not give an individual the right to abstain from any and all acts (for instance, it does not give and individual the ability to refrain from stopping a violent crime taking place before him), then we can see that freedom of conscience does have limits.  The question for the left is: in what do you ground the limits of freedom of conscience?  For Catholics, the answer is clear: natural law.  Therefore, it is a violation of conscience to require the taking of this life.  Yet in supporting the required ultrasound, rather than seeing it as violating conscience, we understand in the greater context of the right to life.

Third, if freedom of conscience is at the service of pursuing truth, then how does giving the doctor and patient more information violate this process?  In other words, if a doctor has the “right” to eliminate the ultrasound from this procedure, the same logic could be used to dismiss all informed consent laws form the books.

Finally, it is always amusing to hear the left decry government regulation in cases such as this.  Somehow the government not only has the right, but the duty, to regulate Wall Street and the Health Care industry in a way that destroys any rational notion of subsidiarity and was never envisioned by the founding fathers, yet when it comes to a required ultrasound before an abortion ... well, clearly that is a government overreach.

Religious Liberty: A Council Ahead of Its Time?

So much of the discussion in the public square of late concerns religious liberty.  Not to obscure the other issues involved in the recent HHS rule and its subsequent “accommodation”, for assuredly there is also the issues of natural law, the right to life, and others.  However, it is curious that the issue on the front line for Catholics and non-Catholics alike has been religious liberty.  I say “curious” not to express disapproval; quite the opposite, for I myself think this is the crux of the issue.  I say “curious” because it has caused me to reflect on the Church’s teaching on religious liberty, particularly those of the Second Vatican Council.

In discussions with various groups that are not in full communion with the Church (okay, let’s not beat around the bush - we mean SSPX here), no issue has caused more angst than that of religious liberty and Vatican II (except perhaps the validity of the Novus Ordo).  Now, there is a certain amount of irony to this, because the “conservative” apologists are now clinging (rightfully) to religious liberty in order to combat the rhetoric and actions of the Obama administration, but the “really conservative conservative Catholics” (e.g., SSPX) find themselves in a bit of a pickle.  For it is this teaching of Vatican II that they have rejected publicly.  (See my footnote below for an apology and explanation of my meaningless labels.*)  Yet we have seen in the last month just what happens when religious liberty is not protected.

With that, let’s have a look at what Vatican II said.  The document in question is Dignitatis humanae (“The Dignity of the Human Person”), and paragraph 1 begins,

“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society … On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it … Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.”

It seems to me that the USSCB could use this paragraph as it mantra for the battle against the HHS mandate.  But let’s continue ... from the next paragraph:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

“The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.  This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

Now this is where SSPX starts to get nervous.  They would claim that no-one has the “right” to adhere to falsehood, and the Second Vatican Council implies otherwise.  As for the first part of the claim, I agree.  I made the point in a previous post that nobody has the “right” to contraception, not just from a constitutional standpoint but also from the perspective of natural law.  However, with regards to “what Vatican II really said,” I read over this section at least three times, as well as the rest of Dignitatis humanae, and I simply cannot see how it implies that people have the right to adhere to falsehood, theological or otherwise.  It does say that religious freedom is essential for man’s search for truth, and that political coercion flies in the face of this necessary freedom, and that “the right to this immunity [from coercion] continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded.”  Yet nowhere do I see that people have the “right” to adhere to falsehood.

At any rate, I meant not for this post to become an occasion for dialog about the SSPX-Vatican disagreements.  I meant only to point out that the Vatican II “Declaration on Religious Freedom” may turn out to be a very useful document for those of the conservative political persuasion in the current climate, and that there is a certain amount of irony, because it was one of the documents of the Council that was most hailed by the “progressives” in the Church.

Certainly the declaration was written within the context of 1965, the year in which Paul VI promulgated it: a time when the world was still very concerned about the oppressive regimes of Communism and Nazism.  Yet I can’t help but think that (surprise, surprise) the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing, for we may well find in our own era the need for Dignitatis humanae.  The battle currently is in the medical field: the fundamental right to religious liberty being trumped by a fabricated “right” to obtain contraception and abortion services free of charge.  However, the battle lying just around the corner will inevitably involve the issue of homosexuality - here we will see a parallel conflict, but it will be the fundamental right to freedom of speech, either in religious or secular circles, being trumped by a fabricated “right” to live one’s life without criticism.  Consider all that is in front of us together with that which is to come, it warrants asking: was Vatican II a council ahead of its time?

*  I am at loss for labels here (as if this weren’t obvious in my use of “really conservative conservative Catholics.”  I inherently reject using the word “traditionalist” because all Catholic should be traditionalist - our faith is a faith of tradition, built on an original deposit that unfolds slowly overtime.  Yet “conservative” is a political term more than a religious term.  At the same time, politics and religious, while distinguished in concept, are not entirely separate.  (There is a reason why politically conservative people also tend to prefer more “traditional” liturgies.)  I hope that the point is not lost here ... it seems obvious to me that the SSPX is a sort of “ultra conservative” group, clinging to a tradition that does not allow for any sort of unfolding, organic or otherwise, but rather is frozen in time (arbitrarily chosen as the middle of the 1900’s).  Then again, I write with a certain amount of trust that I am among friends who will understand the irony which I attempt to disclose, that, despite a lack of appropriate labels, the most “conservative” Catholics (so “conservative” that they have left the Church), are now in need of the one of the very doctrines they reject from Vatican II (the teaching on religious liberty) in order to be “conservative” in our current political battle.

New Liturgical Movement

I am humbled that the New Liturgical Movement has printed my piece on "Introducing Chant into the Domestic Church."  Check it out if you get a chance.

The Unfortunately Prophetic Humanae Vitae

We all know how prophetic Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae has turned out to be, accurately predicting a rise in marital infidelity, premarital sex, abortion, the objectification of women, and the "general lowering of moral standards" that would result from the widespread use of artificial contraception. It appears now that our nation is on the brink of fulfilling other prophecies outlined by Paul VI.  From paragraph 17:

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power [regarding artificial methods of birth control] passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Make no mistake about it - this only begins with government forced coverage of contraception. Once our leaders buy into the lie that "pregnancy is more expensive" than contraception and the larger lie of overpopulation, the forced purchase of contraception may be the least of our worries.

American Catholic: Food, Guns, and Contraception

Instead of responding to comment on my previous post in the proper place, I decided to do a followup of sorts to clarify two issues and to expand on a few of the initial thoughts and their reactions.  As a starting point, I want to consider the following comment left by “Mary”:

“What about an employer forcing their religious beliefs onto their employees? My daughter is a nurse and works at a catholic [sic] hospital. She is not Catholic and feels birth control should be a woman’s decision. The woman has the right to decide when she wants to start a family. She was surprised when she found out that birth control was not part of the insurance program. She has been buying it on her own, and it is not cheap. What about those who can not afford to purchase birth control? Viagra is covered under the insurance program, and that is health care? Don’t think so. I’m not surprised that the article and comments here are all by men. It is not your body and you should not make the decision for women who want to use birth control.”

It seems to me that this misses the point I was initially trying to make, and I take responsibility for any lack of clarity in my presentation.  To make up for this, I want to consider Mary’s argument from two perspectives.  Both perspectives will consider Mary’s assertion that women have the right to use birth control.  First, I will temporarily grant Mary this assertion and re-present the argument that it still does not make it right to force Catholic hospitals, Catholic-owned businesses, or Catholic-run insurance companies to cover contraception.  Second, I will challenge Mary’s assertion by arguing that women don’t in fact have the “right” to oral contraceptives.

1.  What if Mary is Right?

What if we temporality lend credence to Mary’s statement that women have the right to use birth control?  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will direct you back to my initial analogy of gun ownership.  I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but this in no way means that I believe the government should purchase a gun for me, still less does it mean that the government to force my employer to purchase a gun for me.  There is a difference between the right to posses and use something and the “right” to have it at no cost to ourselves.  This distinction has been lost in the national conversation.  Even if Mary is correct that women have the right to use oral contraceptives, it still leaves me wondering why the cost for this should come out of the employer’s pocket or the pocket’s of the insurance companies.

Allow me to illustrate this point with another analogy.  I think all of us can agree that the human person has the fundamental right to eat food.  Should our employers then be required to provide us with our weekly groceries?  Should they be required to give us vouchers with which we can obtain meals?  Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the point of employment was to provide labors with a fair and honest wage, and the wage earners then get to decide how to spend those wages.  Think here for a minute how you would feel if instead of providing you with a paycheck, your employer gave you vouchers for very specific kinds of food.  Is this not a restriction of freedom rather than its expansion?

Actually, when you see the contraceptive coverage in this light, I think you will come to see that having the employer/insurance company forced to cover it is actually the more inequitable scenario.  Allow me to explain.  First, understand that contraception itself is not “free.”  It is a product, and as such it has a cost associated with its production.  If an employer is forced into providing this coverage for all employees, the cost of the plan will be effected somehow.  I will leave it up to the actuaries to weigh in on how this cost works out, but the fact remains that the cost needs covered in some form or another.  Contrary to popular belief at the moment, money cannot be arbitrarily created out of thin air.  (This is a more complicated way of putting the age-old adage, “Nothing in life is free.”)  Now, once the employer has this cost added to the plan, his budget must take that into account somehow, which will translate eventually into wages in some form or another.

Why is this inequitable?  Because it effectively means that all employees will suffer the economic effects of some people choosing to use contraceptives.  Of course, I am not naive enough to think this is a dollar-for-dollar transaction.  Rather, the costs will be spread out through actuarial means.  Nevertheless, would not a more “fair” system be to not cover contraceptives, to pass on the savings in the form of wages and salaries, and to allow those women that choose to use oral contraceptives under Mary’s claimed “right” to do so?

This is precisely what happens with both food and guns.  The employer pays the employee, and the employee then decides what to spend his or her wages on: food, guns, or oral contraceptives.  I would think that the advocates of “choice” would prefer this system anyway, for in taking money in the form of wages and then making an active choice how to spend the money, is that not a more powerful statement than having an employer (by means of government coercion) tell you how you have to spend your wages?  Said differently, the problem with Mary’s “right to contraception” plan is that is actually takes away the right not to purchase contraception - it results in less choice, not more.  If the insurance plans are forced to cover it, all employees are forced to purchase it, although some will choose to leave their supply at the pharmacy counter.  In effect, Mary’s argument actually reduces choice and freedom.

Two other points are worth considering here.  First, Mary claims that contraception is expensive, and that is why insurance companies should provide it “for free.”  The problem with this is the illusion of “free.”  It is basic economics here, something that seems to be absent from the Obama administration’s manner of administrating.  As I pointed out above, the production of contraceptives costs money, and to think that this cost will not be passed on eventually to the employees is naive at best.  The insurance companies are not going to take this “bottom line” hit - their very bright actuaries will work to makes sure that the cost is covered in the premiums charged.  The employer won’t take the “bottom line” hit either.  They employee likes to think of wages and benefits in two separate categories, but to the employer they are both part of a compensation package, and they both cost money.  Whatever is added to the cost of medical insurance will necessarily be made up for in salaries.  Of course, it won’t be right away, but it will be reflected in future salary negotiations.  Anyone who has been a part of contract negotiations knows that it is never simply about salaries and wages.  The “bottom line” will eventually be covered by all employees.  Thus, Mary’s daughter will end up paying for the contraception anyway through lower-than-would-be salaries.  When insurance plans cover something like contraception, it does not “save” the employee money, it simply forces them to spend some of their money in a particular way.

An analogy here is a local collect some years back that “gave” all entering Freshman an iPod.  On the surface, it seems like a “free and generous” gift.  However, the university is mindful of its finances, which means that the cost of this iPod is somehow or other figured into the cost of tuition.  Seen in this light, it is not a “free gift,” but rather forcing all entering Freshman to purchase an iPod.

Returning to the forced purchase of contraception, even from a women’s dignity perspective, I would think that most would find this reprehensible.  It is as if the government is saying, “We don’t trust that you will spend some of your money on contraception, so we are going to force you to spend it just to be sure.”  Once more, apply this to something like food.  It would be like your employer, under government coercion, withholding part of your wages and instead giving you food vouchers for specific items that the government deems “essential” to “healthy eating.”  (Actually, the more I think about it, the more fitting this analogy is.)  Wouldn’t it be better to have the money passed on in the form of wages to allow the individual the right to choose how to spend it?  Once you understand that you will be paying for the contraception in some form or another, does not the whole thing sound rather insulting?  In fact, I do something similar with my kids allowance: I give them a certain sum of money, and then I mandate that they put a portion of it in the Church basket on Sunday.  Why?  Because without the mandate, they won’t do it.  Why?  Because they are children.  When it comes to the forced purchase of contraception, the government is treating women as if they are children: they don’t trust that you will purchase contraception on your own, so they are going to make you purchase it.  (This is what they are doing with the health care mandate itself, by the way.)

The other more obvious problem is that this also forces women who chose not to use contraception to carry plans that cover it, thereby essentially purchasing it themselves (one the cost of the plan is passed to the employee in the form of not-as-high-as-they-would-be wages).  In this way, then, the whole issue is not about the right to obtain contraception, it is about the right not to purchase contraception.

Further, Mary brings up the idea of Viagra coverage.  There is an obvious difference, pointed out by one commenter, in that Viagra is correcting a bodily system that isn’t functioning as it should (and is thus much closer to actual “health care”), whereas birth control is doing nothing of the sort.  However, I will say that in this case I agree with Mary.  I also think that the government should not force insurance companies to cover Viagra, but that the employer should simply pay salaries and wages to its employees  and allow them to choose how to spend their money.  The difference here is that, to my knowledge, the government is not doing this in the case of Viagra.  In fact, it may help to clarify the outcry over the contraceptive mandate to imagine the vitriol reactions that would surface if the HHS mandate required the coverage of Viagra.

2.  But in the End, Mary is not Right.

All of the previous argument is null and void however, if Mary is not correct in her assertion that women have the natural “right” to use oral contraceptives.  In order to address this, we must first re-think the whole notion of “freedom” and “rights.”  The problem with our pluralistic society is that everything is couched in terms of “rights,” and further that this terms is never fully defined.  Even so, a discussion bases solely on rights, defined or undefined, could never actually be consistent, because “rights,” understood in simple unqualified terms, will necessarily lead to situations of “competing rights.”  In this case, we end up arguing over which has precedence: the “right” to religious liberty or the “right” to use oral contraceptives.  When we find ourselves at the inevitable impasse of unqualified and competing rights, the only thing left to decide a “winner” is pure power.  Whichever “party” finds itself in control will force its priority on the populus, and this is exactly what we see happening with the Obama administration.

The difficulty here is that freedom is not the random ability to choose between contraries.  Rather, it is the ability to choose the good.  Servais Pinkaers gives a great illustration of this in his book Sources of Christian Ethics by giving the example of a well-trained piano player.  An individual who has no respect for the “rules” of music and the instrument is “free” to bang randomly on the keys (a “freedom of indifference”), but a trained pianist who has been taught the “laws” and “nature” of the piano is able to create music, a freedom that is much more authentic (a “freedom for excellence”).

The moral life is not much different than the musical arts.  We are created with a purpose, a sort of definition of what it means to be “fully human”, what the Greeks called a telos.  We are “free” insofar as we act in a manner consistent with what it means to be human.  In a dilapidated view of freedom, we are of course able to act arbitrarily.  But such a view is not authentic freedom.  Authentic freedom is found when we act according to our design, according to the natural law inscribed on our hearts.

Understanding the natural law is the only way to avoid the inevitable conflict of arbitrary and competing rights.  The only “right” we have is the right to act according to our design, to act in a way that is authentically human.  Religious liberty falls generally under this one “right” because we know that we need to freely pursue and accept God.  One can never be coerced into faith (even if the “faith” into which they are coerced is objectively “true”).

The question then is, does an individual have the “right” to use artificial contraception?  Does the use of contraception allow an individual to be more “fully human.”  From a Catholic perspective, the answer is clearly, “No.”  Now, it is not my intent here to defend the Church’s teaching on contraception - numerous arguments far better than what I could produce have been written about this already.  My point here is much simpler: we cannot approach this argument purely from some abstract and ill-defined notion of “freedom” and “rights”, but rather must conceive (pun fully intended) of “rights” and “freedom” under their proper telos of natural law.

I will give only one attempt at an argument against the “right” to oral contraceptives.  I mean this not as the only, and maybe not even as the best, but I do think is it the most important one to publicize: oral contraceptives are abortifacient.  It is in the very design of the pill that on the off chance (the measure of which is hotly debated) that fertilization occurs, the lining of the uterus is renders unstable so as to prevent implantation.  In this case, a newly created human person is destroyed - a life is ended.  Now, the fundamental “right”, if we are to speak in these terms, is the right to life.  Understanding the notion of “freedom for excellence,” the path towards fulfillment as a human person, or the ability to choose the good ... none of this is possible without the possibility of living in the first place.  (Another “silver lining” to this tragic situation in which we find ourselves is the mere mentioning of this fact on national television by those members of the Episcopacy (un)fortunate enough to land an interview.  It is about time the terrible truth about abortifacients in oral contraceptives gets more press.)

This is not the best argument against the “right” to use oral contraceptives, because it is conceivable (there is nothing worse than the same pun twice in one article) that someday the pharmaceutical companies will develop an effective oral contraceptive that is not abortifacient.  Even then, seen in the light of Catholic teaching, there will still not be a “right” to use such medication to prevent pregnancy, the prevention of which drives a wedge in the very definition of marriage which by its nature is both unitive and procreative.  In doing so, contraception thereby does not allow a couple to strive towards their fulfillment as human persons in their marital vocation.  (For marriage, after all, is a vocation, and hence a “path to fulfillment.”)  Nevertheless, it the abortifacient argument is an effective argument here and now, because oral contraceptives here and now are abortifacient.