Some Points for Consideration Regarding Covid19 Vaccine Mandates

In the light of the rapidly escalating pressures and requirements placed on individuals to receive the Covid19 vaccine in order to carry out essential tasks of community life, especially to maintain employment, these points for consideration are offered.   It should be noted at the outset that this is a complex ethical issue that straddles the long-standing tension of the need to promote overall public good along with the need to protect the rights of individual conscience.  As such it defies simple answers or resolutions.   

Further complicating the situation are the specific circumstances surrounding Covid19 and the measures that have been used in response to it. These circumstances make this a question less about religious beliefs regarding vaccines in general and more about acknowledging attitudes of suspicion that are not easily or quickly dispelled as each individual takes time to come to terms with what this means for their life circumstances.  As a matter of personal conscience it is most fundamentally a human rights issue, and only by extension is it a religious issue in light of Christian revelation that shows forth the truth of human nature. 

These points are in two sections.  The first is an offering and summary of some recent Church statements on the topic, including a form letter of religious exemption that is written for use in the State of Colorado. The second is a commentary that attempts to show the limits of these same teachings due to the particular circumstances of Covid19. 

Recent Catholic Statements of Note

The following brief statements from the Holy See and of some Catholic bishops are helpful and are worthy of a careful read.

Note on the Morality of Using Some Anti-Covid19 Vaccines, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 2020.  The text may be accessed at this link: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

Answers to Key Ethical Questions About Covid-19 Vaccines, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 2021.

A Letter from the Bishops of Colorado on Covid19 Vaccine Mandates, Colorado Catholic Conference, August 6, 2021.  The text may be accessed at this link: https://denvercatholic.org/a-letter-from-the-bishops-of-colorado-on-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/

The Colorado Catholic Conference also made a letter template available for Catholics in their dioceses.  It is made available in this piece because it offers a clear articulation of grounds for religious exemption based on Catholic teachings.  It may be found here: https://cocatholicconference.org/template-for-religious-exemption-from-covid-19-vaccines/

Among other key points that may be distilled from these statements are the fact that the Catholic Church is not doctrinally opposed to vaccines provided that they are produced in a manner that is morally acceptable.  At the same time, while we recognize the critically important public health benefit to the overall common good that comes from large scale use of vaccines, the Catholic Church does not teach that people are morally obligated to be vaccinated.  Forcing or pressuring individuals to be vaccinated against their personal objections raises legitimate questions about the protection of one’s conscience.  At the same time, it is not unreasonable to expect that members of a society take important health precautions to protect the safety of others, provided that those same precautions are known not to cause harm.

In short, from a Catholic perspective, there is room for reasonable people to be personally in favor of, and also personally opposed to, the taking of vaccines to promote personal or public health.  

The Connection to Abortion

It is also worth noting that these same documents address the question of the connection of the use of aborted fetal tissue to produce some or all of the Covid19 Vaccines.  Long-standing tenets of Catholic moral theology show that the connection between those originally intrinsically evil acts of abortion and the present-day act of taking one of the major lines of Covid19 Vaccines that may have come from those same acts places a very remote level of blame on a vaccine recipient.  

It would be tantamount to saying that no individual may ever purchase a product made in China because the entire Chinese industrial and economic production system relies on a nation-wide policy of forced abortions of its citizens.   An individual may choose to avoid a Covid19 vaccine out of a desire to avoid even the remotest connection to abortion, and similarly one may choose to never buy Chinese manufactured goods for the same reason, but doing so lands one in a moral category of choice or burden that goes beyond what we deem essential for maintaining a clean conscience due to the other overriding considerations of personal and public safety if no other options are available. 

It is tragic and lamentable that any proposed medical remedy has even the remotest connection to an abortion, nonetheless the major Covid19 vaccines are allowed for a Catholic to use due to an unfortunate lack of available and effective alternatives.  

The Specific Difficulties of the Covid19 Vaccine Situation: A Commentary 

Much of the above is helpful if one is speaking about the moral liceity of vaccines in general when it comes to Catholic teaching.  However, in the current situation of vaccinations as a response to Covid19, other factors are at work that are impacting the question of whether or not an individual, Catholic or non, should be pressured into taking the vaccine.  

Covid19 Responses To-Date Have Not Inspired Confidence

One major difficulty is the rapid speed at which the development of the Covid19 vaccine has moved, along with the rapid speed of the decisions to impose its use on the global population as a remedy for this virus.  An individual has good reason to be weary of being injected with any substance that has not undergone rigorous, long-term medical trials and tests.  For some people these risks are viewed with minimal concern, which is their choice.  However, for others, there are a host of reasonable questions that swirl around this new vaccine, and all the decision making about it, that lead them to prefer the risk of contracting Covid itself over the risk of ingesting a substance they view as a long-term threat to their health.   

The ever-shifting recommendations about distance, sanitizing, masks, vaccines, and other proposed remedies for Covid19 have done little to instill confidence in the authorities that are advancing these measures.   As has the arguable lack of established, solid data on nearly every aspect of the outbreak of Covid19.  There is no question that every aspect of how Covid19 has been dealt with has become politicized on both sides of the situation.  All of this leads to an understandable sense of hesitancy on the part of some about the nature of the vaccine itself, its effectiveness, and its necessity. 

The Social Pathogen of Suspicion 

Our era is now one of predominant suspicion toward institutions and people in authority, both in and out of the Church.  No person and no entity is above scrutiny any longer by a population that actively seeks to identify exceptions to norms as a means to undermine confidence in those same norms. 

It is tempting for institutions, employers, and authorities to seek to overcome the culture of suspicion by using their power to force individuals into behaviors with which they do not agree.  More helpful would be efforts by these same institutions to be aware of the reasons for people’s suspicions and to take greater measures that attempt to address them by providing facts and transparent information, and to engage in reasonable dialogue with those who disagree.  As time passes, if the vaccine continues to show itself to be an effective deterrent against Covid19, it will be easier to convince through argument, rather than through force, that being vaccinated is an intelligent choice.  Forcing reluctant people only furthers the social pathogen of suspicion rather than healing it.  

The Need For A Well-Articulated End Game

Additionally, the public authorities that have been responsible for orchestrating the communication about Covid19 as well as the proposed responses to it have not adequately articulated what the end-game is that we are all supposed to be striving to achieve.  Do we want Covid19 eradicated completely? Do we want sickness itself to be eliminated?  What measure of illness are we willing to live with?  What sort of hardships can we as persons and as a culture learn to bear?  These are complex questions that a purely secular viewpoint has difficulty answering and as such it erodes confidence in the authorities that are currently driving the discussion. 

To a Christian who understands that our fallen world will always be imperfect, that this is not heaven, that suffering has redemptive value in the Cross of Christ, and that a cure cannot be worse than the disease itself, much of the Covid19 reality that we are dealing with strikes us as fundamentally unrealistic.   Christians have always supported the gift of healing that medicine can offer, and we pray for cures, and we tend to the sick, but we always do so in the broader context and understanding of what is realistic in a fallen world in which we ourselves are not God.  

Therefore, there is need for balance in our approaches to remedies for diseases, or for social ills in general.  If there is not balance, then there arises the grave danger of the trampling of individual human rights by the hands of the powerful who, either for good or for bad intentions, seek to control far more than they should.   In our haste, in our state of panic, and in our often well-intentioned desire to save lives, it is unfortunately the case that there is much about our reactions to Covid19 that have not been carefully thought through.  In some ways our responses have already been shown to have done other types of harm, most especially in the realm of mental health. 

A “Religious Exemption” Is An Unhelpful Label

Appealing to “religion” as reason for an exemption from the vaccine unfortunately obscures the fact that at the most basic level the issues at stake in the conversation and decision are about human nature in general, as human rights issues, prior to being a matter of faith.  Appealing to a religious exemption for the Covid19 vaccine also might lead to the mistaken idea that observant Catholics are opposed to vaccinations in general by doctrinal necessity, which would be an inaccurate reading of our teachings.   

However, where our Catholic religion is of great assistance in this situation is that it articulates for us in terms of ethics and moral theology precisely what might be making us uneasy about vaccine requirements if left otherwise to our own vocabulary we cannot find the words to express it.  The Christian faith is fundamentally an articulation of the deepest truths of the human person.  As such the language of Christian ethics that applies to matters of conscience, proportionate reasoning, certitude, and our need for truth in the face of questionable circumstances is extremely helpful and is binding on all of humanity.   It must be understood that if a Catholic is seeking a religious exemption what they really mean is that they are seeking a human exemption that is owed to them by their created nature, not by their faith. 

To the extent that vaccines do indeed promote overall better public health, the desire to encourage wide-spread vaccinations is understandable.   In light of that one has sympathy for government, business, and employer policies that require vaccination for Covid19.  

However, in the light of the established Catholic doctrines that articulate what is true about all of humanity, not merely Catholics, that seek to honor the inviolable zone of personal conscience, and in the light of the questions about all matters related to Covid19 right now, serious questions of human dignity are at stake if there is undue pressure on anyone to receive this vaccine rather than allowing them to come to that decision on their own.

My Personal Decision to Be Vaccinated 

As an act of full disclosure, I wish to make it known that I am fully vaccinated with two doses of the Moderna Covid19 Vaccine that I received in April.  I came to the decision to be vaccinated in prayerful consideration of all of the above teachings, based on the personal circumstances of my life, based on the information about the virus and vaccine available at the time, and for what I concluded to be for the sake of overall public health.  No one forced me to be vaccinated, it was my free choice.  I continue to believe that I made the correct choice for myself and for others, and that my vaccination came about in a manner the Church desires: in a prayerful, uncoerced manner.  

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holy Communion and the Catholic-in-Chief

At their recent June meeting, the Catholic Bishops of the United States voted to move ahead with the drafting of a teaching document focusing on the Eucharist in the life of the Church.  The timing of this is opportune for a host of reasons.  One would be that even before Covid, the Church in America (and in Europe) had been experiencing consistent declines in Mass attendance and also in catechetical understanding of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ.  Add to that what Covid did to Mass attendance, forcing what was already low to far, far lower levels, and one can easily see the need for a renewed teaching push about why the Eucharist matters. 

Additionally, as we move through Year B of the Sunday lectionary cycle, we are about to begin a multiweek-long walk through the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel of John which is a critically important Scriptural text about the Eucharist.  Following this upcoming batch of Gospel readings, the Church should be well-primed to embark upon a fuller Eucharistic revitalization later this year.  

Also, and most contentiously, the election of Joe Biden as President, who offers frequent public references to his Catholic practices, has brought to the surface a series of explosive issues that have been simmering in the American Catholic stew for quite awhile, all of which ultimately converge on the proper understanding of the Eucharist.  This does make sense in light of our doctrinal description of the Eucharist as the “source and summit” of our faith.  If there are any fault lines in lived Catholic teaching and practice, they will inevitably intersect in the Eucharist itself.  The question of whether or not President Biden should be presenting himself for Communion is one facet of a much broader set of issues, and the proposed document will seek to address all of this as wholistically as possible. 

Nothing written here should pre-empt the document that the American Bishops have now voted to begin drafting, so there will be no commentary in this short article about the right answers regarding President Biden’s sacramental practices.  However, at this point in the national conversation it is helpful to state that all the questions on the table right now about who and what the Eucharist is, and what it means to encounter it authentically, are supremely important.  It is a disservice to reduce the Bishops’ discussion and initiatives to the level of the merely political, as though a group of them are simply out to get the President just in time for the next American election cycle. 

At only one other time in American history has a man who identifies himself as Catholic occupied the White House.  A Catholic as a president puts the whole spectrum of American Catholic life in full view of the nation for commentary, assessment, and evaluation.  Issues that might normally be “of the family,” as in our own family arguments behind closed doors, have now become a public spectacle for all to see.  The American presidency is a role of such tremendous prominence that it is unavoidable that the manner in which President Biden chooses to practice and profess Catholicism is going to be viewed by many, in and out of the Church, as an example to either be imitated or to be rejected.  In the interests of accurately articulating and transmitting the Catholic Faith, it is imperative that the American bishops offer commentary on his situation.  

Doing so of course automatically becomes a commentary on everything else that intersects in the particulars of President Biden’s practices and positions.  Which forces a necessary revisiting by the bishops of the fundamentals of Eucharistic doctrine and participation that bind everyone, not only the President.  Which in turn forces the American Church to do what it must never cease doing anyway: examine itself for signs of health and vitality as well as signs of atrophy in need of renewal.  Authentic self-examination is never an easy thing as the heated debates surrounding this issue are already revealing. 

All of this has been a long time coming.  In so many respects this is not about President Biden at all.  It is about the constant question of the compatibility of Catholicism with American life.  Which is to say that we need the bishops to debate and to speak, and we also need to understand that we are never going to be beyond these questions in our American Catholic experience.  Like the Eucharist itself, the questions that swirl around its authentic reception will be with us until the end of the age.  To not take up these questions is to fail to take the gift, mystery, and demands of the Eucharist with the seriousness that it deserves as the source and summit of our faith. 

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Re-Ordering the Disorder of June

In Catholic circles, the Month of June is customarily devoted to honoring the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  True, we do honor the Sacred Heart all throughout the year in lots of ways, for example on the First Fridays of Ordinary time.  Countless Catholic worship spaces and family homes have statues and shrines to the Sacred Heart which allows for frequent daily acts of homage.  The Sacred Heart is of such devotional importance as a tenet of our faith that even with all the other types of regular examples just offered, it still gets its own month on the devotional calendar.  Indeed it gets its own solemn feast day on the calendar, which occurs every June.  We will celebrate the solemnity this coming Friday.  June is indeed a privileged time to meditate upon this mystery.

It is providential that this is the case.  If one were to ask most people on the streets these days what June is all about they would probably say “pride month.”  We have by now perhaps gotten so used to hearing this title tossed about in the last decade or so that maybe it has begun to lose the necessary sting that it should have in our ears.  “Pride” is of course a vice and the deadliest of the capital sins.  In any truly Christian culture or world it would have been unthinkable to ever have a month dedicated, even if only by name, to pride itself.  On its face it is actually a very shocking and appalling thing to say: “pride month.”  Pride is not what we want to glorify without some heavy contextualizing.  

Contextualizing would be to explain what it is that we are proud of exactly.  And doing so these days necessitates an appeal to “the rainbow.”  Which is of course only a further source of bewilderment to believing Christians who, going back no more than about 20 years, would have first associations of “rainbow” with the Noah story from Genesis.  Yes, the rainbow was the sign that God gave to Noah and his decedents after the flood to remind them that even though humanity had engaged in gross sins of disobedience, most prominently those of sibling murder and the sexual perversion of the Nephilim (see Gen 6:1-4), that he would overlook our pride and never flood us again. The rainbow was a reminder of how God’s mercy overcame the disordered pride of humanity.  So, linking a rainbow and the vice of pride, as we currently do, seems all very confusing to anyone schooled in our consistent theological tradition.  

To return then to the Sacred Heart:  the heart of Jesus is a heart that is humble, and it is one of profound love. More specifically, it is a love that is firmly rooted in sacrificing one’s self, and fleeing from the glorification of the sensory, the emotional, the popular, and the convenient.  The way that we can ensure that we love authentically, that is according to what always flees from the sensory, the emotional, the popular, and the convenient is to love according to the moral law.  The consistent moral law of the Scriptures and the Church excludes the very sexual practices that are glorified in the secular observance of “pride month.”  Precisely because we seek to love authentically, we cannot accept or seek to “mainstream” what we know to be unacceptable practices or lifestyles.

It is indeed grossly prideful to allow ourselves to think that we are somehow now culturally smarter in our attitudes about these things than our cultural predecessors of prior eras. It is demeaning to them to suggest they were wrong to intuitively know what is fundamentally unnatural, as we busily go about today re-writing the laws of nature at a dizzying pace, while at the same time smugly claiming to be so “green” and “nature-oriented” in our time. If we are going to contextualize “pride month” then cultural hubris seems the best way to do so.

Which is to say that if anyone who is a believing Christian these days finds anything troubling in the secular associations, or the unnatural acts of “pride month,” we should quickly find refuge and conversion in the Sacred Heart.  It is the antidote to what is out of order around us this time of the year.  His humble, merciful, and obedient heart is our example and pattern to follow.  His heart is filled with love even for those who, to their detriment, reject his teachings.  We are reminded in the prayers and readings of the Solemnity that his yoke is easy and his burden is light.  Life is always lighter in the depths of our hearts when we walk according to his designs, even if sacrifices come with doing so.  

May we love in humble obedience.  May he make our hearts humble and gentle like his own.    May we reject pride in all of its disordered manifestations, both in our own hearts, and in the cultural disorder around us.

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Between “Catholic Amish” and “Catholic Lite”

For the entire history of the Christian Church there has existed the struggle about how we are to live in the world without at the same time becoming corrupted by the world.  At many points along the way the Church did indeed become very worldly with damaging results. At the same time there have always been movements in Christianity that advocate a more pure, untainted, un-worldly faith.  These same movements tend towards a withdrawal from the world into self-created havens or zones of like-minded observant believers.  In these havens there is agreement about common daily practices that allow them to avoid the taint of the secular.  This is done, it is said, in the name of authentically preserving Christian life and revelation from hostile, worldly forces that bear within themselves sinful characteristics.  

Withdrawing From the World Is Not the Christian Vocation 

The most familiar example of such a movement or group to many of us in this part of the world would be the Mennonites, or as they are more commonly called, the Amish.  For them most types of contact with modern social structures and forces are sinful and are to be avoided. The Amish accomplish this act of avoidance by living together with other like-minded thinkers who adopt a commonly agreed to set of behaviors that keeps the sinful world out, keeps the purely observant believers in, and thereby carries an untainted Christian life (as they see it) forward in history.  In all of this they consider themselves to be saved and in many respects as the “elect.” 

Catholics have constantly had to fend off the temptation, in every era, to become like the Amish.  We all want to be pure and to avoid sin, and it is true we must take that very seriously.  It is true that in “the world” in every era there are always dangerous ideas, practices, interfaces, and contacts that run the risk of doing harm to the soul.  It is true that we must draw hard lines about what is right and wrong.  It is true that we are obligated to tell the world around us what is true and what is false, and that we are to be a witness to another way to live. 

That said, withdrawing into isolated Christian communes has never been a viable mechanism to accomplish all this.  Each time in history that the temptation arose to withdraw and become some pure, Amish-type entity, the Church has had to correct such movements and explain that we as believers are obligated to engage the world and to live in the mainstream.  The reason is because this is how we act as saving agents in the world. Out of heroic love for the world we choose to live in it, even though it may make us feel “safer” to withdraw and live among the “pure” ones.  

Not only is it forsaking our duty to save the world if we choose to withdraw from it, but doing so always leads to its own set of spiritual and practical problems.  Insular, separatist communes inevitably require their own sets of rules as well as their own type of charismatic personality leaders in order to sustain their required borders against the secular.  They gravitate toward certain clergy, or bishops, or loud voices as a center of stability.  Which inevitably leads to arguments and to, in most cases, a lack of sustainability.  It also becomes very difficult for such communities not to fall prey to the sins of pride and of control as they seek to mold a new generation against every possible outside threat they can think of, doing great harm to them in the process.  

Monasteries Are for Monks 

It is popular these days to read back into Medieval Europe some romantic solution to our current situation of cultural upheaval in what, back then, were the monasteries.  We are to make little islands of Christian civilization in an otherwise post-Christian, fallen world.  This is the so-called “Benedict Option” advanced by Rod Dreher and others like him.  His reading of that time period is too simplistic and is therefore inaccurate, meaning that his solution should not be thought of as the broad-based answer to secular opposition.  There is also no such thing as going backwards in history and this must be kept carefully in mind as we search the past for the answers to our contemporary dilemmas.  

Monasteries are not a valid historical counter-example to the trends described above for various reasons.  The Church’s long monastic and eremitic traditions, while intentionally fleeing “the world” through the observance of the evangelical counsels, still maintained intentional connections with the currents of the world around them. In most cases monasteries were the busy hub of their village or territory, fully engaging in the economic and political currents of the day. Men and women of consecrated life saw their sacrifices of withdrawal as a means to be mission-oriented for the good of the salvation of the larger world. The religious communities that maintained the healthiest balance of withdrawal and also engagement vis a vis the world are the ones that survived through time.   

More to the point, the generally accepted viewpoint within the Church of the monastic life is that it was, and remains, a unique calling of a small segment of the larger Christian community.   It is not meant to be the mainstream vocation of the lay, baptized faithful.  Once the laity, either as families or as single persons, attempt to become too monastic or too underground in their outlook and practices then corrections are in order.  

Being Comfortable in the World Is Not the Christian Vocation

Not only has there always been the need for the Church to guard against too strong a tendency towards the insular, there has also always been the need to guard against the tendency to blend in too comfortably with the world. At various points along the way in our long Christian history, there has arisen the need for substantial reform movements in order to return the Church to what fundamentally distinguishes us from the profane.  Worldly, secular attachments and ideas are always infesting the Church in the same way that weeds are constantly trying to take over a garden.  It is a necessary, and also a delicate process, to constantly be weeding out what does not belong.  

What Does It Mean to be “Catholic” Today?

Our current era of the Church is once again not much different than the prior ones when it comes to confronting these divergent and excessive tendencies with regards to “the world.”   As so much becomes secular around us, the divide is growing between what we might call different groups who compete for the same label of “Catholic.”  There are the “secular Catholics” who are simply the baptized, Christmas and Easter Catholics who have a Catholic label but exhibit few other markers of the faith.  On the other hand there are the “observant Catholics” who are regular church-goers, and who seek to adhere to the entirety of the Catholic life that the Church proposes and professes.  The secular Catholics are growing more secular as the culture grows more secular, and the observant ones are growing more isolated.  In such a scenario the temptation for the observant to withdraw from the culture and form pure, Amish-type communities grows stronger and stronger.  

Conversely, the temptation for the “secular Catholics” is to either leave the Church all together, or to actively lobby the Church to re-think her teachings and catch up with the times.  Such a mindset assumes that it is the Church that must learn from the secular world rather than the reverse. Historically, this type of mindset in its most unbalanced and unbridled form has taken the shape of heresies and schisms in Christianity, giving birth to more liberal communities that ultimately tend to blend in and disappear with the culture that consumes them through the passing years. 

I have great sympathy for the movement out of the world that I see happening more and more around me in the observant Catholic circles.  Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a little Catholic village where I never get my hands or my soul dirty by having to deal with all that is so pervasively corrupt in our modern economic and legislative structures? Wouldn’t it also be nice to just have a “pure” Church that does not have to deal with the nagging questions of the more secular minded people in our midst? Does one just simply wish them away?  

The Church has always said that an approach to this perpetual dilemma that is too one-sided is not the answer.  No, the difficult fact is that the secular Catholics need to be less secular, and the observant Catholics cannot avoid getting hands and selves dirty.  Reform is indeed needed these days to purge us of poisonous practices and ideas that circulate within large sectors of the Catholic population, but the reform cannot amount to withdrawal.  There is no leaving the world, however tempting it may be.  The Gospel is given to push us into the world and to save it by doing so.  Into the world we will continue to go.  At the same time we do indeed need to stand against the world.  The Gospel is given to the world to save it from itself and therefore as revelation and truth it must be protected from the onslaught of secular non-sense.  Therefore it is not an option to simply go along with the currents of the day without critical questioning.  

“Catholic” has always meant “universal,” as in: our teachings both apply to every human person and are also open to and accessible to every person, without any need of secrecy and also without any apologies for what we know is true to a world that often questions us.  “Catholic Amish” is not the way forward and neither is “Catholic Lite.”  “Catholic” remains the answer in every era.  

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Palm Sunday and Desiring the Donkey

I do not know many people who aspire to, or enjoy, riding on donkeys.  It’s possible that I may have ridden on one at some point in my life as a young child at some petting zoo or something.  Maybe you have ridden a mule down the Grand Canyon trail (I walked, but only part way).  On the whole, we have little use for them these days.  Horses are instead the animal of prized recreational choice.  They are fast, they are beautiful, they are sleek, they are strong.  These days they are also in many respects a status symbol since they are not really needed for labor as they were in the age before mechanized transportation.  The mule or donkey is in most respects, and by contrast, an animal of humiliation and amusement in our culture. In other parts of the world that are very poor, they are like the family tractor.

Jesus does not want to sit on a horse to enter into Jerusalem for the Passover.  In the ancient world the horse was an animal for warriors or soldiers.  An animal for the wealthy. An animal for those with grand earthly status.  It was the right of a king to take any horse that he encountered, regardless of who it belonged to, and sit upon it to claim it for his own use.  For all these reasons, Jesus does not want a horse for his welcome with palm and olive branches.  He is not that type of king, and he is not that type of person.  

No, Jesus wants a donkey.  The animal of the common person, and the animal of lowly means. An animal that is a simple beast of burden, and maybe even one of humiliation.  On the donkey he sits, and on the donkey he rides like a big sack of grain.  Were it not for all the waving branches, which was a gesture reserved for mighty conquerors, Palm Sunday would be a rather pathetic scene to witness: this simple Galilean grown man bouncing along atop a donkey.

When one understands with the eyes of faith just who this man is then the whole thing makes perfect sense.  Our God is indeed king, but He is king in a way that does not rely at all upon earthly sources of power and authority.  Therefore, he is content to live on this earth in the manner of the lowly, and in so doing shows his tremendous power.  What a thing it is to ponder how low the mighty God can make himself.  

The Church enters into Holy Week this year in much the same manner as the Lord entered into Jerusalem.  In the eyes of the world right now we appear not so much like a mighty, strong, popular, beautiful horse, but rather like the lowly, embarrassing, simple, beat up donkey.  We have shed so much of our earthly glory of late, being reduced now to the world’s mule.  Who pays us much attention?  Who is looking out for our rights?  Who is interested in anything we are saying? 

Yet, for those who see the Church through the eyes of faith for who she really is, a lot of this makes perfect sense.  Our power does not come from anything of this earth.  It comes from our union with the one who was content to be a common man, relying on the love of his Father for all that he needed. On one hand the Jerusalem establishment totally underestimated this man on the donkey.  At the same time, perhaps precisely because they could sense there was just something untouchable and other worldly about him, they considered him dangerous and deserving of death.  It is the same with the Church today and our opponents.  On one hand we are not much to look at these days.  On the other hand, the secular forces sense that we are a tremendous threat to their merely earthly authority which is why we are attacked with such vigor. 

Holy Week reminds us, among other things, that the Church should not be surprised if we find ourselves in the same position as our Lord.  It is the donkey that we must aspire to as well, and not the horse.  Of the two animals, it turns out it is the donkey that was and is far more powerful. 

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Transgenderism Has No Clothes

Transgenderism, especially the push to enshrine in civil law a protected status for people who consider themselves not to be a male or a female in the customary sense of those designations, has increasingly been filling our news these days. The topic is long, complex, and loaded with sensitivities. 

It is indeed important to speak with sensitivity about sensitive topics in the hope of fostering greater understanding in the hearts and minds of people who are wounded over these matters. However, in recent years the cultural departure from objective reality itself, and from a healthy view of human nature, has become dramatic when it comes to the topic of transgenderism. It has reached the point where even the slightest departure from its ideology is viewed as hateful.  In such a climate, one loses hope that speaking with tip-toed sensitivity on the subject is going to make any difference at all. 

Therefore, fruitless sensitivity aside, the current cultural moment would greatly benefit from some clearly articulated counter-points offered from what has now become the “classical” perspective on human nature.  It is the Church’s role as the guardian of the authentic understanding of human nature to speak clearly for the sake of the present generation and for the generations to come. 

“Male” or “Female” is How God Wants Us to View Ourselves

The Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are essential voices of divinely revealed truth about how we understand reality. They are very clear that humans are created male and female, and that maleness and femaleness are willed by God as good things.  For us as Catholics those are binding statements of faith and truth.  Unfortunately, the same statements are increasingly viewed as un-scientific in the light of all the subtle variations of biological markers that are evident when one looks hyper-closely at male and female physiology across an entire population.  This leads many to conclude that doctrinal statements about “male” and “female” will, before long, be viewed as something the Church was forced to retreat from in the same way we had to let go of the Medieval idea that the earth was the center of the universe.  

The subtle variations mentioned above are in the vast majority of cases just that: subtle. Which means that any claims to the effect that modern science has shown there really are not two sexes is more ideological than it is scientific.  Far more iron-clad across the whole population is the simple truth that, subtle variations aside, a woman is able to be a mother and carry life inside of her, and a man is able to be a father and conceive a child inside of a woman.  

If one understands that maleness and femaleness are most fundamentally about the creation of new life, then all of the subtle variations in biological markers are quickly reduced to something of minimal importance. We quickly arrive back at what the Bible has said all along: God made us male and female, and that we cannot switch our gender identities. With science being lost in an ideological fog on this point right now, it is the gift of Divine Revelation to put everything back in perspective for the good of the human race that would otherwise destroy itself in gender theory.

Men Are Men and Women Are Women. 

It is true that there is a very small segment of the human population that experiences genuine sexual identity discordance that originates in biology and psychology. This is a mental condition in which a person deeply questions his or her given sexual identity.  For those people, the remedies require care and compassion, rooted in a proper understanding of the situation.  A proper understanding holds to the normative character of the categories of male and female that all of us do fit in to, even if imperfectly at times.  For the ways in which we sometimes feel conflicted in our sexual identity, these are best explained through the ancient lenses of fallen man, sin, grace, the cross, and the resurrection with some good counseling thrown in to help.  Remedies that suggest we should attempt to change our biological sex are never, ever, compatible with God’s plan for us as people and will not leave us satisfied.  

Much of our world today lives totally cut off from the land, from agriculture, and from the raw forces of nature.  In such a world, it is easy to begin to think that gender is fluid and that we can manipulate it, or even that we can be overly conflicted about how we understand ourselves as a man or a woman.  Unfortunately, it can even become trendy or an attention seeking behavior to try and “go against the norm” by ruminating too deeply on the idea that we are really not what our bodily sexual identity shows that we are.  When that happens to us, the answer is not to suddenly decide we are a different gender and seek legal protection from any attempts to be told otherwise.  Instead, the answer is to take it as it is: part of the mental roller coaster of adolescent and adult life that we just weather as best we can without re-inventing reality, or worse without mutilating otherwise healthy bodily reproductive systems. 

Legalized Violence Against Human Dignity

To enshrine “transgender” as a distinct biological and legal category, on the same plane with “male” and “female,” actively erases the unique roles and gifts of men and women in the world. A man with inner conflicts about his sexual identity who decides he is female, and who attempts to bend his biology around his mental self-image even to great lengths, can never truly be thought of as a woman. Insisting that family, friends, neighbors, legislators, and employers label him as a woman is a flight from his true identity and a degradation of true femininity.  Viewing a man as a woman denies women their right to authentic self-expression, and their right to the safety and security of settings and circumstances that uniquely belong to women.  All the converse is equally true of a woman seeking to convince herself she is a man.  Rather than being left with a social situation in which we all acknowledge a “range” of gender possibilities, as the transgender movement would have everyone believe, what is actually left is generic humanity bereft of any deep and lasting identity or community.  

For the vast majority of the human population that intuitively grasps the objective fact of biological, God-willed masculinity and femininity, it does violence to us to force us to construct an alternative version of reality of sexual identity.  A woman who forces me to claim that she is a man attacks my dignity because she denies me my fundamental right to acknowledge what is objectively true.  It also denies anyone else the ability to offer meaningful help and assistance through expert counseling and therapy, thereby thwarting the God-given desire in all of us to offer authentic, compassionate healing to those in pain.  Embracing God’s plan of masculinity and femininity leads to true human communion in the bonds of objective truth. Denying God’s plan in the manner that transgender ideology does only leads to isolation in the shadow world of make-believe, and to the fracturing of the human family. 

Now Is the Time to Speak Clearly

The Church needs to speak boldly right now about this before it is too late, recognizing that we are never going to win a popularity contest on this issue.  We must understand the transgender movement for the grave misunderstanding of human nature that it is, and we must fight for our legal rights to point out reality to those who would deny it. We must do so as part of our God-given mission to protect people from ideas, forces, and practices that spell disaster for the human family.  This is a duty that all of us should take seriously and we should make our voices known to those who hold public office.  Any society that intentionally and legally denies the truth that we are created male and female has no future. 

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Our Sanitized, Lifeless World

One of the cultural markers of our era is a heightened interest in ecology and in the natural world. This manifests itself in a variety of ways, from advocacy for public policy changes such as the Green New Deal, to an obsession with natural foods, and to the ever growing interest in outdoor recreational activities.

Ironically however, the modern world seems to prefer to love the natural world from a distance and only as long as we can control it, choosing to quickly retreat back in to our man-made controlled environments whenever nature becomes less than convenient. What’s more, we have grown so accustomed to our ability to alter what is natural, that we rarely consider anymore how doing so has altered our thinking, our ethics, and even our spirituality. As our modern world has grown more and more removed or insulated from regular contact with raw nature, it has altered our views on personhood, and on the reality of suffering.  

Not long ago, most of the people who lived in this country were either farmers, or, if they lived in cities they had probably grown up with direct exposure to the agrarian world.  Much of this began to shift with the 1950’s/60’s moves to the suburbs, and the succeeding generation (which would be my own) being raised more and more in a zone of low-exposure to the cycle of life and death that defines so much of the natural world.  As time has passed we have steadily built a reliable infrastructure, now including a whole virtual world which is fundamentally un-natural, that shelters most of us from the gritty reality of all that is hard about the created world.  In short, we have grown very accustomed to what I would term a “sanitized” existence, where all is well-controlled.   

In such a climate, we forget that things change, births are supposed to be un-planned, sickness is ultimately an unstoppable force, and that death is everywhere.  We also forget that in the natural world where there is so much sickness, death, and a lack of control, it is compensated for by a tremendous abundance of life and fertility.  Life is a truly tenacious force and in its own cycle it masters death, if it is not tampered with, or rendered infertile.   

For the Christian, the suffering, dying, and rising of the natural world that used to shape humanity without exception (until our recent un-natural era) finds it’s fullest expression in the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  His entry into the natural cycle of dying and rising, and his gift to us of himself in the sacraments, allows us to move up to the next level of the cycle, so that our death leads to a rebirth in the life to come.  Christ is what moves us through suffering, through death, and in to new life.  

To a world that no longer lives close to nature, except these days through hyper-controlled and well-equipped camping and hunting (read “leisure”) activities that, if they don’t go well bring no harm, it is difficult to grasp the necessity of these points, of Christ’s death and life.  It is also very difficult to confront suffering when we are so used to controlling all of it, even thinking we can escape it.  

All of the above is part of why I love the changing of the seasons, especially the Fall.  All around us now the world is dying back, as it must do at this time every year.  It is delightful to see the plants and trees not resisting or arguing with this simple reality, except by doing what they have always done, which is getting ready for the seeds and growth of what will come next.  

Persons can only push back the boundaries of nature so far before we usher in a type of Hell for ourselves on this earth.  Maybe as we watch the leaves fall now, we would be wise to meditate upon this simple fact, and also on the gift of Christian revelation that shows us the true path of personhood, and opens up for us the only real pathway from death into new life. 

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Respecting Human Life

As we cross into October, we again find ourselves observing Respect Life Sunday in this country. In this contentious election year, and in the context of another heated national conversation over the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice, the issues surrounding the sanctity of human life are “front and center.”

Much of the emphasis on Respect Life Sunday tends to land on the very important topic of abortion and all that goes with it. This is a bit unfortunate because, for as fundamental and critical as opposition to abortion is from a personal and public policy perspective, it can at times keep us from seeing the broader set of issues that go along with rightly understanding personhood and life.

Opposition to abortion is one logical component of a larger perspective that seeks to understand human nature according to the fullness of God’s design. As one understands the dignity and meaning of humanity as God created it, one realizes that respecting life means honoring and upholding a consistent set of ethical and behavioral principles that have a wide reach. Respecting life means respecting personhood, which is not merely about the beginning and ending of biological life, about life in the womb and life in a Hospice. It is about how one treats those who are vulnerable, and about how one seeks to uphold justice, equality, and the meeting of basic human needs for all members of society. These are questions of poverty, race, compensation for wages, our criminal justice system, and the financial protection of stable family life, just to name a few. In short, if one is imbued with a deep and sincere sense of wonder and awe over what a person is, as God has created us, then we do not treat people as disposable commodities. That is true in the womb, it is true in the factory, it is true in the hospital, it is true in the jail.

There is more, though. These days respecting life means respecting the boundaries of what we can and cannot tamper with in the realm of God’s plan for the human body and God’s plan for our human vocation. Respecting life means opposing artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, same sex marriages and activities, any type of gay sub culture, swift divorce processes, transgender sexual reassignment surgeries, any theory of gender that denies we are made as male and female, and any attempt to manufacture/ create life outside of the womb. Respecting life means opposition to pornography, masturbation, fornication, and adultery. Respecting life also means respecting our fundamental right to worship and practice our faith publicly, and our right to give expression to our faith by creating public policies that regulate all of the above practices so that humanity can be fully and adequately protected.

All of this has to do with the correct understanding of the dignity and meaning of the human person. If the last few decades have taught us anything, it is that all of the above stands and falls logically as a whole. If a person or society begins to rationalize or justify a departure from God’s plan in even just one of the above concrete areas, it leads inevitably to the demise of the rest of them. We have rampant abortions in our era because we have justified a whole host of other behaviors and factors that lead to them, all of which undermine life and humanity. It is not enough to merely oppose abortion. One must oppose a whole host of behaviors that violate God’s vocation and plan for humanity if one is going to be truly pro-life.

All of this is why election years and supreme court picks can pose such challenges for us. Americans these days are a people of divergent and contradictory allegiances, and our two-party political apparatus is a reflection of this chaotic fact. It is not possible for a candidate or party that is in favor of abortion to respect human life. That is a fundamental contradiction. At the same time, even if a candidate or party publicly and rightly opposes legalized abortion, they must also be committed to opposing all of the other social forces that denigrate humanity and frequently give rise to abortions in the first place. That is a tall order these days.

Our fervent prayers for the respect for life are very important. Prayer does lead to the transformation of hearts which ultimately must lead to public policies that do protect the human person in its fullness. We will continue to pray, and we will continue to commit ourselves to the total creation of a comprehensive culture of life.

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In Data We Trust: Covid and the Limits of Control

Every respective era makes collective societal decisions about which voices do and do not hold sway over people’s behavior. A quick glance at the long sweep of history reveals that as we tire of one voice of authority, we go in search of another. Our contemporary society is no different, and indeed it may be the case that we may be on the verge of yet another collective shift in our allegiance to whose voice we follow, with the arrival of, and response to Covid as the game-changer.

Who Is In Control? Shifting Voices of Public Authority

Early in human history adherents of pagan religions built their daily routines around sacrifices made to a wide array of gods in order to obtain what was needed. It was pagan priests and priestesses who were the perceived manipulators of the forces of nature in order to bring fertility, healthy crops, cures from headaches, victory over an opponent, an end to digestive problems, and the obtaining of wealth, just to name a few important ends of daily life.   While today we term paganism a “religion,” that designation masks its true nature. It was fundamentally all about exercising control over the forces of the world. Paganism and its clergy were the leading societal influencers of their day because of the promise of control that they offered.

Later in time paganism would be gradually supplanted by Divine Revelation. The people of Israel received God’s revelation first, and then after them in the fullness of Christ’s teachings the Christian Church would carry God’s message to the ends of the earth. This brought liberation from the daily fear of the forces of nature and the endless cycle of manipulation of the natural world associated with paganism as it became understood that God alone governs creation. God continually revealed that he is mighty, loving, and that he has a plan for humanity and the world.  Therefore, HE is in control, freeing us of the seduction, and the burden, of having to control all that acted upon us. A Christian believer is most fundamentally sustained by the hope of the resurrection that breaks the controlling power of death itself.

No thinking of this sort was possible to a world that worshiped nature because nature’s forces were cruel, and the pagan gods were capricious.  Christian revelation fully explained human nature, the working of the world, and the right ordering of society.  Thus, for long stretches of history, it was Christian revelation, continually guarded and articulated anew by its clergy, that held wide-spread sway over people’s behavior.

Eventually a discipline of science was able to emerge from the cradle of Christianity as its own distinct authority, along with expanded ideas of civil government as its own distinct authority.  Each of these voices of authority could come into existence because humanity knew that God had ultimate authority, allowing us the freedom to study the natural world rather than worship it, and to govern ourselves after the pattern of a divine law giver who was just, rather than arbitrary.  Rightly understood, these sources of authority brought a degree of liberation from the earthly sufferings of the body and of the pains of social unrest.

In later eras, the authority of the Church and Christian truth began to be only partially accepted, or even dismissed outrightly, by large segments of society. Western government became either anti-Christian, or Christian in concept only, and in various sectors of the world it replaced the authority of the Church.  During the same segment of history, the authoritative voice of science grew in its power to convince, doing so more and more in a manner that for many people was in ideological opposition to principles of Divine Revelation.  As science grew more ideological apart from its Christian roots, it became increasingly a means for control. The same can be said for government.

In the late 20th Century, after a series of blows to institutional credibility over Vietnam, Watergate, and increasingly divided political factions, our collective trust in the voice of consent-based democratic government has been badly shaken in some sectors of society.  Increasingly government is showing the limits of its ability to unite the human family and of its credibility.  The authority of the Church was also further weakened in the same era as a result of the tragic sins of its clergy, and also by decades of internal debates over questions of disciplines and teachings in the wake of Vatican II, leading to widespread lukewarm observance on the part of the laity.  The gradual collapse of widespread trust in these voices of authority opened the door for a new set of influences to take their place.

King Data and the Scientific-Media Establishment

What is it that holds sway over us all these days since the Church and Government have now become so ineffective in shaping broad-based public opinion?   It could be termed the scientific-media establishment.  Even the most suspicious among us are very slow to question whatever science and medicine say.   “Data” floods the world on a daily basis, and it is now the unquestioned purveyor of authority and truth.  The new clergy are doctors and scientists, and their evangelists are the mainstream press, along with the ever-shifting networks of social media.  It is data that now governs our daily routines more than anything else, and rarely do we ever question if that is a good thing, or if there is any such thing as data that is detached from an ideological agenda.  In a world where data is divine, we do not step back to analyze the easy connection between “data” and “control.”

Data Driven Morality As A Mechanism of Control

Humans are instinctively, by God’s design, moral, philosophical, and political creatures.  Where there is not a moral system to govern us, or when it does not come from Revelation, we create one.  This is the reason why, these days, all of the data that is continually dumped upon us by the media, cannot help but give rise to camps, divisions, and political / moral positions that force people to be either for or against whatever data-driven ideological agenda we are making our way through in the given moment.

In this way, ideological science merged with prevailing politics generates new public moral norms that hold sway over the society and become very powerful.   In such a climate, what emerges are forces of social scandal that paint as immoral anyone who does not conform to the new prevailing moral norms that are rooted in data.

Once upon a time, in a heavily Christian world, it was the neighbors who enforced the Christian moral norms about, for example, divorce and cohabitation before marriage.  People lived in shame of the neighbors learning about them living with a person to whom they were not married. Much the same was true for modesty of dress in public. The norm enforced itself much of the time merely through peer pressure.

Today, the new moral norms driven by data, the media, and newly-generated, government backed ideologies, enforce a whole different set of shames and rewards.  We care very little at the moment about anyone getting a divorce, or people walking around in public half-clothed.  However, we are very upset if people do not wear a face mask.  If someone is not wearing one, they are hauled for swift condemnation before the public tribunal of science and data by the angry, obedient neighbors.  The same can be said about public peer pressure to display rainbow flags, to join in a protest rally, and, until Covid, not to use disposable waste materials, just to name a few examples.  As the last example of the sudden eclipse of the Green Movement in the now plastic, pre-packaged, non car-pool, non public transportation world of Covid shows, these data driven public moral norms can shift and change at a dizzying pace.

It is true that wrapped up in all of the new public norms are the left-over shreds of what Christianity brought to the world: care for the vulnerable, attention to the sick, etc.  Our new societal norms are not all bad, making them seductive for Christians. However, when detached from over-arching and ultimately unifying principles of Revelation that outline the complete picture of the human person, of creation, and of God’s divine plan for society, all of the data-based norms run the risk of becoming highly dangerous.  On their own they are not capable of fostering unity.  On the contrary, they further fan the flames of social division as they quickly turn into mechanisms of control.

Returning to the Pagan Allure of Control

We have come full circle back to paganism because we have detached the pursuit of personal and public health from the ultimate divine promise of life after death, salvation, and the Second Coming.   If earthly health is our new ultimate good, in the absence of an eternal life, then it is a small step from worshiping health to worshiping nature again as the source and summit of the cure for all of our problems.  It is the Covid virus that we fear now more than God.  It is the promise of a vaccine, rather than the promise of heaven, that drives all of our public choices.

Like the paganism of old, what is most seductive about blind obedience to data linked to scientific observations is the allure of control.  We begin to believe that we can control everything, and every natural force that acts upon us, if only we study it enough, and manipulate our surroundings sufficiently.  We develop an exaggerated sense of our own power and influence over the pains and forces of life, growing very upset when our attempts to control them fail.  We think less and less of the consequences of controlling, by force or penalty, the behaviors of individual persons if we can justify the control in the name of some perceived greater good, such as health.  Before long we have ceased to live life out of fear, and we have ceased to be human, opting instead for isolation, fragmentation, frustration, and anxiety.

The Revolt Against King Data?

Ultimately, as history shows, the absolute authority of the science and media establishment will also crumble as people begin to realize the limits of its competence, and its inability to provide us with the ultimate meaning to life.  Science is based solely on our senses, and our senses are extremely faulty sources of information, as anyone who (for example) wears eye glasses knows so well.  That is why science is continually changing its mind and its teachings, while the media races to report the latest, daily mind-change as though it was a new utterance from some divine oracle, worshiping at the altar of data.

That works well enough when the changes impact people’s lives merely around the margins.  I remember learning in science class as a child the great, certain, and unchangeable truth that Pluto was the ninth planet of our sacred solar system.  Then one day I was told there are only eight planets.  Pluto was demoted and the text books were quickly re-written.  One day it was pronounced by the medical, science, media establishment that eggs were one of the worst things we could eat.  After a brief passage of time the same magisterial entities explained that eggs were now great, even though eggs themselves had not actually changed.  Once upon a very recent time, due to the wonders of science, we invented and widely used an amazing material called asbestos that was offered as a solution to so many problems related to public building safety.  We were also very proud of the public health benefits offered by the widespread use of DDT as a pesticide.  Then one day, all that turned out to be bad.  We were so eager to create genetically modified crops to stop world hunger. Now we are realizing that perhaps this is the origin of so many of our food allergies.   On I could go with the sins of science, which are erased daily by a media with constant amnesia for what it reported only yesterday.

The population is forgiving, for awhile, of those types of mistakes.  Perhaps the arrival of Covid, and all of our attempts to control it, will bring about a new questioning of our widespread trust in the science and media establishment. Right now the entire global population is being subjected to a daily whiplash of shifting behavioral norms and expectations, resulting in the collapse of an entire global economy.  It is all driven by data (that is largely untested), as well as the allure of control.  We have convinced vast sectors of the global population that it is human behavior, based on new moral norms about masks, distancing, and the like, that will control a force of nature, namely, a virus.  This places enormous pressure on individuals to believe that their failure to comply with the latest data driven moral public norm (masks, self-quarantining) is going to directly result in someone else’s death.  The hubris, and the cruelty of this type of propaganda, is staggering and it is de-humanizing.  Eventually, the population will rise up against it as they see it for what it is.  It is control disguised as charity.

The Need for the Christian Voice Remains

We have faced wide-spread outbreaks of deadly diseases before in human history, and we have indeed relied upon the helpful expertise of medical science to tame them for the preservation of human life.  However, this is the first time in centuries that we are doing so in the absence of a well-established widespread Christian worldview that checks the runaway control mentality of ideological science.  A Christian culture does seek to preserve life, but we do so knowing the limits of our control, knowing that a provident God guides all events, and knowing that earthly health is a temporary, limited good.  People die all the time, and the only real liberator from the fear and control that surrounds this fact is the Christian hope of salvation and resurrection.  In the absence of that, we are back to pagan control, widespread anxiety, and public manipulation.

Right now it is important for believing Christians to continue to place our hope in God and his promise of salvation as the essential bearer of perspective about all the forces that are colliding around us.  Health is a good, data can be useful, science rightly viewed can point us to the divine, and government under God’s laws is of great value.   If Covid does begin to usher in a needed check on the runaway powers of ideological science, media, and political quests for control it is because God has allowed this pandemic all for the purification of what, in the right perspective, are otherwise good things.  Even with the damaged credibility of the Church these days, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Church remains the bearer of God’s revelation which was given to the world to purify and to save in every generation.  We need to present his teachings, anew and with vigor, to a world that right now lacks perspective, and seriously needs to hear them.

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Covid Red and Covid Blue: Observations From A Local Catholic Pastor

The world continues to tip-toe its way forward into the new reality of life with Covid.  In recent weeks in Washington County, Wisconsin we have observed various local businesses, especially restaurants, re-establishing some type of pattern of regular operations as things have slowly loosened up in our area.  Even with so many regular events that have cancelled, such as county fairs, people are still finding ways to gather and interact.  Local athletics activities are slowly returning with some adjustments to the usual routines.  Parks are full of people.  Ice cream shops are busy.  Healthy human interaction is slowly returning.

I have found it interesting to observe not only the gradual loosening of restrictions (for example a local fast food restaurant moving from not allowing customers to get their own drinks when the dining area first re-opened, to dropping that restriction a couple weeks later), but also the lack of uniformity about it all.   Some businesses and entities are still hyper-restrictive.  Other local places are operating right now pretty much like this spring never happened.  There are clearly a wide-range of operative policies right now about face masks, distancing, capacities, and sanitizing from business to business.  For some offices, most people are still working from home.  In other places, everyone is back.  Everyone seems to be respecting everyone else’s personal comfort level about it all, at least up to a point.

The sentiments of mutual respect seem to reach boundaries or limits increasingly along the usual “red” vs “blue” lines of our politics.  The more Libertarian-minded members of the population (call them “red”) tend to bristle at any attempt at managed restrictions to life, regardless of the reasons behind them. Conversely, the more “State-Sympathetic” members of the population (call them “blue”) find abiding by all the restrictions to be some measurement of good citizenship for the common good, and treat them like a merit badge.  That being said, fears of germs have certainly caused some “red” “blue” realignments with typically “red” minded people suddenly becoming much more “blue” on this one issue if they have decided their health is in danger.    I suppose this is just how America approaches everything, including viruses.

In the light of all this, one should not find it surprising that the Church is caught in the same dynamics of a piece-mealed and inconsistent set of approaches to Covid, varying area by area, parish by parish, and Catholic by Catholic.  Yes, we do all try to be on the same page as an Archdiocese, but the reality is that it is just not the same everywhere now that the unifying initial terror of the outbreak has worn off, and human nature has again taken over.

I have been fascinated to note the range of reactions among Catholics to it all, similar to the red-blue re-aligning of the culture over the whole situation.  One might think that there would be no “high-risk” members of the population in our churches at all right now out of fear of getting sick, leaving only the “young and healthy” to trickle in to our pews.  This is not the case, though.  Noticeably absent to my observation have been many of the young who, in theory, should have no problem coming to gatherings these days.  One cannot help but observe that many of the young have no issues appearing in large, public protest rallies right now in our cities.  We have been blessed with many young families at Mass, and younger people to be sure, however, the most dedicated of those coming now are clearly in the “high-risk” demographic who are older.

I will speak generically, which I realize is dangerous, but I suspect the reason for this is because they were raised in an era of history and of the Church that has allowed them to place all of this in a different perspective.  Sacraments are what get us to heaven, as we teach, and the fact is people get sick and die (as any older person is keenly aware), therefore they would rather get sick than be deprived of Sacraments which they know to be eternally more important.

I will not make a ruling on whether or not that mindset is objectively correct or not, other than to say that as a priest, I have great sympathy for it.   As time passes, the Church is going to have to wrestle through the difficult theological question of what “health” means in our therapeutic era, when placed against the looming backdrop of “eternity.”  This is not a simple question to answer.  Right now, the Catholic faithful, “red” and “blue” alike, are answering the question according to their own conscience and comfort level, which works for awhile.  At some point, this becomes a question of doctrinal articulation in the era of pandemics.  We are not there yet. For now, we will continue to tip-toe our way forward, figuring it out as we go.

Posted in At Random | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment