Three Links Wednesday (vol. VIII)

"Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom. He is a fresh free will added to the wills of the world; he is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable) really comes from him and from them and from nobody else. He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord. He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life."
-G.K. Chesterton

--I--

First, on catechesis (and Catechisms): Mr Mark Stricherz has a short post on the value of the Baltimore Catechism for the blue collar Catholic.

the Baltimore Catechism was not elaborate, overly complex, or opaque. It didn’t require an advanced degree to read and understand. As a result, Catholicism was accessible to ordinary church-goers, including the working classes. It was the way of our people....By accident or design, the American Church has gravitated toward the college educated. It is pulling in great intellectuals and theologians, but losing the non-intellectuals among us. Revising the Baltimore Catechism would help win them back.

There is, of course, nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the Church's appealing to the more intellectual crowd. However, this shouldn't be done at the exclusion of the "blue-collar" Catholics. On a related note, one of my own frustrations as a sometime catechist is that it seems like whenever I give a presentation, I'm told that it goes too deep in the theological context--and I have been told, in so many words, to specifically removed parts of my presentations which are based on the Baltimore Catechism. Suffice it to say that I agree with the thrust of Mr Stricherz's argument that the Baltimore Catechism is well-suited for "blue-collar" Catholics, but also really for all Catholics.

--II--

Next up, a post by Dr Stacy Trasancos concerning Catholicism, modernity, science, and scientism:

Faith is based on Divine Revelation, and science is based on Creation, both originate in God – The Objective Truth. [25] All methodical research performed in a “truly scientific manner” will follow moral laws and will not conflict with faith. [26] To admit less freedom in the pursuit of knowledge is to actually admit more knowledge because the authority to which assent is given is to the highest eternal Truth and infinite Wisdom. [27] The Catholic scientist is grateful to his Creator for revealed truths.

With disciplined but child-like humility and perseverance “being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself” he knows more of the important truths than vagabond free-thinkers. [28] Man is given dominion over Creation, and science and technology are resources that serve man and the good of society; but alone they cannot disclose anything about the meaning of existence. [29] There must be guiding principles in the pursuit of knowledge and research must conform to the plan and will of God. [30] The Catholic scientist is guided by the metaphysical principle that God is the Author of all truth, Creator of all things. Every experiment is designed under this principle, every set of data is interpreted under this principle, and every new hypothesis is formulated under this principle.

 Indeed, even the non-Catholic (heck, non-theistic) scientist is not free to be a totally free-thinker. Theory divorced from data is bad theory; on the other hand, data without any principles to interpret it is like so many bricks thrown hapazardly into a pile: not so much as house as just rubble. And both must ultimately fit into a broader metaphysical picture. Unfortunately, this idea "metaphysics" is practically a bad word amongst these "vagabond" scientists, so we are left with knowledge that only occasionally leads to better understanding, and rarely to wisdom, let alone which as allowed to point to Truth.

--III--

The Saint Peter's List blog has a nice primer on the 4 Laws (Eternal, Divine, Natural, and Human):

Too often Catholics – both sides of the American political aisle – try to be Catholic according to the precepts and philosophies of modernity and its intellectual trends. We push our Catholicism into the contraints of something alien to it and then wonder why our faith seems tenuous and conflated. The Catholic tradition has long rested on Aquinas’ treatment of the divinely ordered cosmos to answer questions of providence, Scripture, nature and politics. Catholics cannot thrive within philosophies and theologies marked by isolated stomping grounds and modern blinders. Catholics believe in one divinely ordered Creation. Catholics should not judge nor live their Catholic lives according to modernity, but should judge and live within modernity according to Catholicism. To accomplish this feat, one must understand the how existence is ordered and how harmony of these laws promotes the common good.

It's is worth noting (as the writer of the post does note) that human law is not an extension of the ruler's will, but is rather there to enforce (and clarify) the Natural Law (and to some extent also the Divine and Eternal Laws). "Human Law seeks through nature and reason to clarify and determine the gray areas of Natural Law." A bad (human) law is thus one which is contrary to the Natural Law (and thus ultimately to the Divine and Eternal Laws*). Thus, for example, the HHS Mandate as Human Law is a bad law because it does go contrary to the Natural Law, rather than complimenting or enforcing it (or even simply letting it alone); said mandate is thus unjust. Since it also violates conscience rights, it is not only unjust but also downright tyrannical, and should be resisted by all men of good will.

*This is not to say that the whole of the Divine and Eternal Laws must be enforced through Human Laws, but rather that neither should be opposed by Human Law.

--Bonus--

It's not rare to find something which is offensive to Catholics (and meant to be) promulgated by one or another media outlet, be it the mainstream media or other sources. However, it seems that there is a recent spate of open bigotry on display in some of the latest offerings, from such sources as the Huffington Post and the New York Daily News (which I think probably qualify as at least quasi-mainstream outlets). This is to say nothing of the Church hating catholics--or Catholycs, or Catholites, or whatever--such as the New York Times' Mr Nicholas Kristof and Mrs Maureen Dowd (who we've had recent reason to consider), or for that matter the "toned-down" anti-Catholicism which makes it into the Washington Post disguised as a political commentary. But this latest round of offerings is nothing short of libel against the Church and her members, and smacks of the same willful ignorance and unbridled malice of the KKK and the know-nothing party (to pick two anti-Catholic groups from American history). This is not about just hating the Magisterium of the Church and those faithful to it, but of hating Catholicism qua Catholicism, hatred of all things Catholic. In the HuffPo (hit)piece in particular, the acrid smell of sulfur pours forth form my computer screen upon reading it. This is not merely dislike of or disagreement with the Church's doctrines but rather hatred of the Church as the visible and unified communal body of Christ. There is indeed a war on the Church, and not only in America; there always will be until the Parousia and the Last Judgment. This war is certainly waged by some people actively and others passively, some intentionally and some not; but it is more important still to recognize who the real enemy is in this war, who is the "general" of the army opposing the Church Militant, who ultimately directs the war against the Church. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but Truth is rarely politically correct, and neither ultimately is acknowledging that there be an enemy of Truth. That enemy is Satan, the devil.

Nicene Guys: The Holy Trinity

Introduction: What is the Trinity?

What is the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith? Some might say that it is the doctrine of the Eucharist, or of the sacraments in general; others might answer that it is the doctrine of Original Sin, or more broadly of Creation-Fall-Salvation-Sanctification. It might be argued that our central doctrine is the revelation of Christ as true God and true man, or that He established a Church through which God would continue to teach us and speak to us until the world's end. These are all very important doctrines, but none of them is ultimately the central doctrine of the Catholic Faith. Rather, the core doctrine of our faith—the central tenet in which all other doctrines are rooted—is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) tells us that

“From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis, and prayer of the Church” (CCC 249).

It is therefore worth asking what is meant by the doctrine of the Trinity. The best summary of the doctrine is to say that there are three distinct persons united in one divine nature, that is, that there is one God in three persons. Oddly enough, though we do find references to all Three Persons of the Trinity in the Bible (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 13:13, Galatians 4:6 or John 14-17), the doctrine itself is not formulated in the Bible but rather through Tradition and through the teaching authority of the early Church.

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Seven Quick Takes (v 26)

--1--

First, a personal note: I have a new baby nephew! His name is Matthew Gregory, and he was born very early Thursday morning. My wife and I have also been asked to be the godparents, an honor which we have gladly accepted, and a responsibility which we must steadfastly and dutifully perform.

--2--

Speaking of births and my wife, today is her birthday. It's also her mother's birthday, for that matter, but since it is my wife's birthday, I'm going home early today to spend the evening together. What did I get her for her birthday, you may be asking? Well, she's been wanting an Oreck vacuum cleaner, so as unromantic as that sounds, I got her one of those, the titanium model. She got her present a little early, though, so I already know that she's really likes it (it's much lighter than our old vacuum, for one, and it doe s abetter job of actually cleaning for another).

--3--

There is one bit of silver lining from the whole HHS mandate thing. In response to this bit of raw tyranny, the bishops have become united, and a number of Protestants and others of good faith are standing together with the bishops and with Faithful Catholics in favor of religious liberty. That is, after all, one of the most fundamental liberties of all, which is why the late Pope John Paul II stated that "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Either way, the Obama administration has struck at freedom, both by preventing Catholics of good faith from doing what we'd like (by making us do what we'd not like, e.g. forcing us to support something which we oppose), and in stripping us of the right to do what we ought. That silver lining extends locally to the pastor of my parish, St Louis King of France. He's normally a fairly good homilist; on Ash Wednesday, he was on fire, and delivered quite possibly the best sermon I've heard from him. I very rarely hear sermons about morality and virtue, at my own parish or at any which I happen to visit; sure, the homily may touch on these things, but rarely do we hear a clear and strongly worded exposition of Catholic moral teaching as the focus of a sermon. This is an area which I've long believed needs improvement, and that at the local level. Nor am I alone (even among Catholics) in this critique. Perhaps this exercise of raw government power to stomp on the Church, this bit of tyranny from our President and his administration, will finally rouse the priests (and yes, the bishops) from their slumber on teaching the moral truths of of our Faith, and in particular the hard moral truths. Only time will tell.

--4--

Even on the economic side of things, the HHS mandate doesn't make sense. Indeed, the Obama administration apparently left out two groups of people when deciding on this tyrannical mandate. The first is faithful Catholics in general and the bishops in particular. The second is apparently anybody who would bring up the actual economic question of cost effectiveness. President Obama's HHS mandate is bad law, it's bad economics, its bad morality. It is also a renege of the promises made by this President in his commencement speech at Notre Dame University, in essence he gives faithful Catholics the finger. This has prompted some to reply by giving him the "finger" right back:


The Obama administration's HHS mandate is tyrannical, and should be resisted strongly enough that neither our current president nor any of his successors ever try it again. RESIST THE TYRANT!

--5--

Speaking of economics, it seems like any time the subject of earmarks and pork barrel spending comes up in economic debate, there are a large number of voices (in particular from the left and in the media, though many on the right are guilty as well) who say that pork is simply irrelevant. Case in point, this piece by CBS on a recent GOP primary debate:

"The first half of the two-hour debate got bogged down an impossible-to-follow battle over earmarks and how they work; it was both boring and relatively trivial, in light of the relatively small role earmarks play in the federal budget."

It's true that pork qua pork spending is a small monetary part of the budget problem. But the out of control budget is in part a moral problem which comes about because of a lack of spending discipline. It is the most flagrant, blatant example of unnecessary government spending, but if we can't deal with even that part of the budget, how can we ever hope to get the rest of the budget under control? It's analogous to saying that a man who is a member of a family which is going hopelessly into debt shouldn't worry about the money he spends on (say) binge drinking because it's "only" thirty bucks a week, whereas the family is spending much more on a nicer car and fancier clothing than they need. Indeed the family should cut back on the clothing and automobile budget, but at least the clothing and to some extent the car is a need or at the very least a want of the whole family. The excess booze is fairly self-serving, and until the man cuts back there, he's not going to be cutting back elsewhere, either, and in all likelihood, neither will his family.

--6--

Some people have said, in rebuttal to the Catholic position and opposition to this HHS mandate that it doesn't after all, hurt individual Catholic (not many of them, anyway). So few of us are employers that we're not really affected directly, after all--or so the reasoning goes. Such "reasoning" is the reasoning of a person with his head in the sand (at best), and it does hurt those few of us who are faithful Catholics (and, ultimately, all of us) by insisting that immorality will be embraced as morality, and cooperation with this immorality will be coerced by government and enforced as the law of the land; it makes it rather difficult for our bishops to speak out on this--and Lord knows they need help here, not hindrances--when they are being forced to cooperate with it. Perhaps Chesterton says it best in a book about a different evil (though let us not kid ourselves, a related evil):

"The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air....

[Their] books and articles are full of suggestions that [fruitful, procreative] unions should and may come to be regarded as we regard sins...[they] really set up as saints the very men whom hundreds of families have called sneaks. To be consistent, they ought to put up statues to the men who deserted their loves because of bodily misfortune...What is perfectly plain is this: that mankind have hitherto held the bond between man and woman so sacred, and the effect of it on the children so incalculable, that they have always admired the maintenance of honour more than the maintenance of safety. Doubtless they thought that even the children might be none the worse for not being the children of cowards and shirkers; but this was not the first thought, the first commandment. Briefly, we may say that while many moral systems have set restraints on sex almost as severe as any Eugenist could set, they have almost always had the character of securing the fidelity of the two sexes to each other, and leaving the rest to God."

Here is the book in which he wrote this. He might have been writing against the modern proponents of Obama's HHS mandate, of the culture of death, or indeed of contraception in general. Indeed, in his day the proponents of widespread contraception and sterilization were one and the same with the Eugenicists.

--7--

Lent has come, and is a time for penance and fasting, repentance and conversion, the overcoming of vice and the training of virtue. It's also a time of joy, if a more austere joy. Might I add that it is because we have the simplicity and sobriety of Lent that we may ultimately more enjoy the celebration of Easter? That our feasting is made better by our fasting? That is not, of course, why we fast, but it is a certain added bonus. As Dr Lewis puts it,

Catholics know how to party.

This observation should not be dismissed as mere flippancy or a tawdry attempt to make the faith “cool” (hip-hop Jesus has probably done little for authentic devotion).  I am convinced that Catholics (and other Christians who embrace self-denial, particularly our Orthodox brothers and sisters) truly have better parties than our secular neighbors.  The tipsy women nursing cosmopolitans at nightclubs and the dead-drunk frat boys at keggers may balk at such a claim, considering the self-sacrificial austerities of monasteries, convents, and Catholic families.  But this claim is true, for two very important reasons.

May I add that in holding our parties in moderation, we are more able to enjoy them? That we may find more "fun" in temperance which allows us to not only enjoy but also remember the night than those drunken frat boys and tipsy women who forget the night's "fun" but know that they must have had it by the headache and even heartbreak of the next morning? Chesterton once quipped that he did not understand those who would not have the Faith, but not have the fun; I'd like to add that for many of us, it's because we do have the Faith that we can enjoy the fun.

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. VII)

Lent begins today. I'm not exactly doing a facebook fast, but I d intend to spend less time in general browsing the internet. This probably also means fewer blog posts.

--I--

The first link-pair goes to the New York Times' Mr Ross Douthat. He's written both a column and a blog post concerning abortion and its ties to contraception. He rightly notes liberal policies towards these  things do not reduce the abortion rates if we compare like countries to like countries, and also that the slogan "safe, legal, and rare" hardly results in abortions' being rare, whatever might be said about the more conservative "abstinence only"/monogamous marriage approach. To wit:

The problem with the conservative story is that it doesn’t map particularly well onto contemporary mores and life patterns. A successful chastity-centric culture seems to depend on a level of social cohesion, religious intensity and shared values that exists only in small pockets of the country. Mormon Utah, for instance, largely lives up to the conservative ideal, with some of America’s lowest rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births and abortions. But many other socially conservative regions (particularly in the South) feature higher rates of unwed and teenage parenthood than in the country as a whole.

Liberals love to cite these numbers as proof that social conservatism is a flop. But the liberal narrative has glaring problems as well. To begin with, a lack of contraceptive access simply doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in unplanned pregnancy in the United States. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception...

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

I've criticized "abstinence only" sexual education before, but not because I think that pushing condoms into the hands of every teenager in America will solve what is, at its core, a moral problem.

--II--

There is a common misunderstanding of medieval philosophy that says they used to think that women were defective men. They're not, of course, and that's not what they believed in the Middle Ages, out-of-context quotes and oversimplifications be damned. However, the attitude of modern man in the 21sth century seems to increasingly be that boys are just defective girls*. This is also wrong. So is the attempt to "medicate the man out of [the] boy." Why does it seem like in the "enlightened" modern era, every problem can be fixed by a pill?

*And also, ironically, that women are defective men--see birth control, artificial.

--III--

On the subject of education, Dr Thaddeus Kozinski writes:

But now, it is not only the cynical postmodernist who wonders if he can trust “the establishment,” the mainstream media, educational establishment, cultural icons, and politicians. Can we really take for granted their capacity to guide safely those of us who need guidance, of mediating what can’t be accessed directly, of forming those in need of formation into the true, the good, and the beautiful? Now it is the ordinary American, and not just the alienated, countercultural intellectual, who feels himself to be, culturally and intellectually, on his own.

The young are in need of a true story about the world and their place in it, but they seem bereft of trustworthy storytellers; they are in need of principles and values upon which to ground their thinking and action, but they are unsure where to find these in the dizzying marketplace of ideas where one ware seems as good as another. And this is why obtaining the right education has never been as urgent as it is today. It is not just a matter of career advancement and money making, or even cultural formation and leadership. It is, now, a matter of survival.

It reads like a bit of an advertisement for Wyoming Catholic College towards the end (well, it is that university's blog), but a good piece nonetheless.

--Bonus--

Bonus feature comes from another New York Times' writer, allegedly also Catholic. From the pen of Mrs Maureen Dowd comes this screed against Rick Santorum's "fanaticism":

"Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.

That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah."

Right, I can see why he appear to be a fanatic, since Ross Douthat has even noted that he seems like more of an activist than a statesman, and that his zeal is untempered by prudence. Fair enough, even if I happen to be on the same side in the culture wars as Santorum*. Normally, I would let this pass, but I wanted to note three things which Mrs Dowd writes, one of which is just plain odd, probably should be re-arranged, and illustrates why we need the Oxford Comma:

1) "Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?"

Tell that to the Obama administration and their HHS Mandate.

2) "This week, public outrage forced the Virginia Legislature to pause on its way to passing a creepy bill forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, which, for early procedures, would require a wand being inserted into the vagina — an invasion that anti-abortion groups hope would shame some women into changing their minds once they saw or heard about traits of the fetus.

Democratic Delegate Lionell Spruill hotly argued that the bill would force 'legal rape.'"

Also known as standard procedure during an abortion, so this is actually a ridiculous argument if it is meant to be "for" abortions" but "against" ultrasounds. Or was Delegate Lionell Spruill intending to investigate Planned Parenthood for rape?

3) "Senator Sanitarium, as he was once dubbed on 'The Sopranos,' sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away independent and Republican women who like to work, see their kids taught by professionals and wear Victoria’s Secret."

I don't have any kids right now, but I can assure you Madam, I do not want to see them "wear Victoria's Secret." For that matter, I do not want my kids to be wearing Victoria's Secret, period. Then again, I'm neither a woman nor the kind of person who gets alienated by someone's recognition that sensuality can lead to sin, that contraception is evil and for that matter that it really isn't necessary to enable women to work outside the home.

*I've also been called a fanatic and a Catholic Mullah of sorts for my viewpoints, even though what I want looks nothing like a Catholic version of Sharia law. Unfortunately, fanatic now means everything from "willing to destroy civilization for one's ideology" (in which case it is as fairly applied to the secular liberals as to any religion or ideology) to "recognizes that there is a spiritual as well as a cultural war." Santorum does do this, and largely seems to end up on the right side. Dowd does not seem to recognize this, and so largely seems to end up on the wrong side. Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps its malice.

Nicene Guys: RCIA Question Box on Contraception and NFP

Why is the Church opposed to contraceptive use? And what is Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
This question is complex enough that I will break it up into pieces in answering it. First, what does the Church teach concerning contraception? Second, What is so great about NFP? Third, why is contraception a sin?

What Is the Church Teaching Concerning Contraception?
The Church teaching concerning contraceptive use is very old, and traces itself explicitly to the early (indeed, apostolic) days of the Church; implicitly it can be traced back even further. It is nicely summarized by Pope Pius VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae ("On Human Life"):

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

In other words, no means of artificial birth control—whether by permanent sterilization, condom, oral contraceptive, patch, etc—is morally licit in the normal course of sexual relations [1].

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Seven Quick Takes (v 25): NFP and the HHS Mandate

--1--

I've spent most of the time during this fight over Obama's tyrannical HHS mandate discussing religious freedom (and the Obama Administration's assault thereof) and contraception. It may be worth looking at the flip side of all this and considering Natural Family Planning (NFP). In part, this is inspired by a guest post on the Washington Post's blogs from earlier this week, in part because of the advice of friends like Mr Nathanael Blake, and in part because I think it would be good to focus on something positive. However, there's also more to be said of the HHS mandate itself.

--2--

First, I would like to say that I agree with the thrust of Mrs Ashley McGuire's post concerning three things (at least).

1. This widescale conversation concerning contraception is a good opportunity for the Church to "renew and refresh" and re-present her teachings concerning both NFP and contraception.
2. While the Church's teaching on these things is correct, the way in which it is taught needs to be "modernized"--or better yet, just simply improved.
3. "It would be a little awkward for the church to modernize its teaching if it is footing the bill for the very thing it is teaching against," which seems to me to be the whole point of the mandate.

Let's look at each of these points in turn.

--3--

First, the Church has an opportunity to renew, refresh, and re-present her teachings on this issue. This is not the same as saying that the Church needs to modify her teachings, or change them at their core. But on the other hand, what percentage of Catholics have actually heard the Church's teachings on these issues (beyond just "Contraception bad, NFP acceptable"), I wonder? How many have read John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" addresses, or for that matter the commentaries and interpretations of these presented by Christopher West, or Fr Richard Hogan, etc? I'm not saying here that hearing is believing, but I suspect that more people would accept the teachings if they heard the rationale behind them, and head a defense of these teachings given more consistently, whether in the homilies or in special programs sponsored by parishes or even dioceses.

--4--

Second, and this is related to the first point, the teaching of the Church is not outdated, nor is the method of NFP. In fact, NFP is actually quite effective*, more so than any form of contraception short of surgery--a fact which even the Guttmacher Institute admits. Unfortunately, the organizations within the Church which teach about NFP, abstinence, chastity, and contraception tend to focus only on the negatives (NFP works just as well as contraception for avoiding children!) or in a very syrupy manner on the positives ("abstinence is cool!") without delivering much substance in between. Some organizations which promote (and educate on) NFP do a little better, but even here is is easy to find "the methodologies overly complicated, the classroom setting awkward, and the marketing corny and outdated." Granted, I don't find the methodology complicated, but I also have the advantage of being a professional scientist; my wife (and plenty of others) has in the past thrown up her hands in despair over this, especially after that first session, which can be pretty daunting. As Mrs McQuire puts it,

"But the method of delivery and communication of the teaching is outdated. Many Catholic women who do practice NFP find themselves overwhelmed selecting from a slew of different methodologies, most of which come with confusing charts that look like they belong on a trading room floor, codes and symbols better suited to Cold War spy novels, and rules and warnings that would make anyone’s head spin."

Unfortunately, this is often the sole focus of many (perhaps most) NFP classes. Perhaps some consideration could be given to putting these courses in the context of Theology of the Body, for example, so that the focus is a bit less on avoiding pregnancy (or even on delaying it) and a bit more on why the Church is so morally opposed to contraception.

*It is more effective at avoiding pregnancy when compared to diaphrams, condoms, spermicides, "withdrawal", and is just as effective as oral contraception but without the side-effects. Oh, and that is true whether we compare perfect use or typical use for all forms of birth control to NFP.

--5--

"It would be a little awkward for the church to modernize its teaching if it is footing the bill for the very thing it is teaching against." This would seem to me to be the main point of this mandate. Its about crushing any opposition to the culture of death, which is exactly what President Obama promised he'd do if elected. He originally tried this with the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act"--he went so far as to promise that this would be his first priority as President--which was roundly rebuffed. He's therefore trying a different tact, that of targeting the moral authority of the biggest opponent of the culture of death: the Catholic Church. In this case, he's chosen a a teaching to which only the Church holds as a large and recognizable entity, and to which only a minority of even practicing Catholics hold. I do not think he expected quite so much backlash from within the Catholic community, to say nothing of Protestant, Orthodox, and non-Christians of good will who have stood with the Church on this one. It is a game of divide and conquer--in much the same way as "anti-discrimination" laws are meant to advance that front of the culture war--meant to first erode a moral authority from the bishops on a "little" issue, then perhaps on to bigger issues (be they abortion or "gay marriage").

--6--

Concerning the statistics of the issue at hand, it seems to me that the whole point of the "98%" thing is to try an trivialize Catholic teaching as if nobody followed it. Of course, that 98% is misleading at best, and involves some rather sloppy (and self-serving) statistical methods, and is an outright lie at worst. Church doctrine--and the consciences of those faithful to it--is not determined by statistics. However, it occurs to me that there is a very interesting (and blatant) double-standard at work here, as when the message becomes that "only" 2% of Catholic obey the Church on this teaching, therefore it's not significant enough number of people to justify changing policy or even to make an exemption for specifically Catholic institutions. On the other hand, we notice that the same people often resort to horror stories about women who would die without an abortion*, or about women who conceived during a rape (horrible as that is)** while ignoring that this is considerably fewer than 2% of abortions, to say nothing of pregnancies.

*And never mind such things as the principle of double effect or unintended consequences.
**Incidentally, the Church actually does permit emergency contraception use following a rape, provided that the woman in question takes this in a timely matter so that the contraception prevents a conception rather than an implantation--the latter being an abortion. Also of note is that the Church is against abortion even in the case of rape, because abortion still takes an innocent life. It's a hard truth, but murdering a child for the crimes of his father solves nothing.

--7--

Concerning NFP itself, I have found from my own use of it that my marriage is better for it. Discernment of children is a constant process between my wife and I (and God), and not something that we just put on the back-burner for a few years and then forget about. She does not have to take pills which completely alter her body's biochemical balance, and we don't have to worry about a defective condom or pill throwing everything off. For that matter, we won't have to worry about whether or not contraception has caused us problems in conceiving when we do start having children (which will probably be sooner rather than later, since we actually both want a large family). During the times of abstinence--it's probably about 10-12 days per month--we find other ways to bond, which is good since even sex is not forever, nor is it lifelong. In a sense, NFP is practicing for when we finally do have children. This is not to say that other people who do contracept can't bond in any way other than sex, though to look at divorce rates among NFP couple and the population as a whole, this might have something to do with it. And, unlike with a contracepting couple, our acts of love do not involve our rejecting some part of each other, nor of withholding that part. In short, we live contraception free and are happier for it.

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is normally hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog, but today it's guest-hosted by Mrs Hallie Lord.

Two Pictures Today

No time for a full blog post today. I will pass along two pictures, however. The first is the picture of willful blindness:

Anti-Catholicism could count as a religion or a pastime.

This whole kerfuffle began with the insistence that Catholic employers must violate their consciences to provide contraceptives, which are already fairly readily available. If the complaint is really that contraception is so hard to obtain and oh so expensive, would it not make more sense to insist that every employer give every employee a $600-1200/year "bonus" (and that tax-free), which is the rough estimated cost for contraception on average? No consciences violated, since the employee could in principle spend that money on anything, whether contraception or luxury items or paying the bills. Of course, it may not make much economic sense, but in that sense the current mandate is really no different, in either its original form or its "compromise." But remember, it's *not* a war on religion (Catholic or otherwise) nor even really a battle in said war.

Second, there is this:

Explaining why the HHS mandate is a bad idea: here I stand, and I will not yield. Or maybe I'm the horse.

Which feels like a good analogy for a certain facebook meme, not to mention most corporate/research group/planning meetings, among other things. It might also have something to do with widespread sentiment pertaining to the previous picture.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. VI)

"Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!"
"And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

This could almost be the exchange between the Catholic Health Association and others who embraced the President's "compromise," on the one hand, and the response of the Bishops and those of good faith who stand with them, on the other.

--I--

First, Mr Ross Douthat has a post concerning the so-called "compromise" on the HHS mandate:

So far as I can tell, the White House’s proposed “compromise” in the contraception-sterilization-plan B-ella controversy asks the parties involved to compromise their reasoning faculties and play a game of “let’s pretend” instead. The revised regulation allows religious institutions to pretend that they aren’t actually purchasing an insurance plan that covers services they find morally objectionable, because their insurance companies will be required to pretend that they’re supplying these services free of charge. But fond illusions about “free” services aside, it’s hard to see how a system in which Catholic hospitals and colleges are required to purchase health insurance for their employees from insurers that are required to cover birth control, sterilizations and the morning- and days-after pills is meaningfully different from the original Health and Human Services mandate. As Yuval Levin writes, ”the choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their workers with access to a product that violates their convictions or paying a fine to the government.” The rule has been changed, but the reality remains the same.

Meanwhile, Mr Mark Shea gets in a good quick jab at the mandate--one which it well deserves--and reminds us to RESIST THE TYRANT. On a related note, I had been contemplating voting third party this time around, since Mitt Romney doesn't sit well with me; this HHS mandate means that such contemplation is over and done with.

--II--

My colleague Mrs Kayla Peterson begins to take on the lie that contraception is somehow good for women. It's not. At best, it make s a bad situation worse by making a woman think that she is living risk-free when she is not: which is why the majority of abortions are committed against the children (and, for that matter, the mothers) who were conceived while the mother (or father) was using some form of contraception.

--III--

My friend Mr Nathan Kennedy on the Komen-Planned Parenthood fiasco:

 "And immediately before [the tyrannical HHS mandate], there was the public fiasco about that one organization who started having doubts about their long-term steady relationship with that other organization because that other organization was not the kind of organization that that she was hoping he would be, and how after great heartache they ultimately decided it would be best to keep the relationship going for the good of the screaming activist children…"

--Bonus--

CatholicVote's Jennifer Roche has a short story about what life may be like in 50 years if we continue along the path on which the President has placed us. I do not think it will be quite like that, though the future I envision won't be much better. I suspect that we will eventually arrive at something like what China has with the National/Patriotic Catholic Church which is effectively ruled by the government, and then a smaller "underground" Church which is actually faithful to the Magisterium and to the Vicar of Christ. The latter will be somewhat persecuted, but it will ultimately survive; the former will probably not. But whatever may be the result in the future, our task no is clear: RESIST THE TYRANT, in prayer, in action, or in simply continuing our lives "deaf and disobedient to his arrogations."

TMM: Liars, Damned Liars, and (Worst of All) the Guttmacher Institute

I've noted before that the Guttmacher Institutes' claim that 98% of Catholic women have used contraception at some point seem a bit off. For one thing it frankly doesn't matter if any or every Catholic woman has at some point used contraception, since either way the Obama administration (and Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al) is attempting to infringe on the religious freedom of the Church and those who are faithful to her, and moreover are doing so in a manner which is not rooted in reasonable considerations for individual consciences or for the private good. But that 98% number makes for a nice little talking point, now, doesn't it? If, after all, only 2% of Catholics' consciences are affronted by this brazen move, then that's a minority so miniscule as to be ignorable (especially by, say, the mainstream media), nevermind that this represents a larger number of people than some entire mainline Protestant denominations [1]. It turns out that this number is indeed skewed, and in a manner which is at best sloppy and lazy.

From the survey in question.

As it turns out, that 2% figure--aside from representing that perhaps self-selecting sample of people who are willing to talk to the Guttmacher Institute about matters sexual--represents sexually active women of childbearing age. It does, therefore, ignore women older than 44 but also largely would ignore any unmarried Catholic women who are also not engaging in sexual activity, not to mention nuns and married Catholic women who are actually trying to have children: no mean slice of the faithful Catholic woman populace! It moreover includes, as Mr Tom Hoopes notes, "People who have never darkened the door of a Catholic Church" who will, nevertheless mark themselves as Catholics [2]: "We aren’t dealing with practicing Catholics. In fact, a two-thirds majority of the Catholics in the survey are not eligible to receive communion, according to the U.S. bishops (see page 9), since they skip their Sunday obligation."

Oh, but there's more. I turns out that even with these allowances, that 2% figure actually represents the number of sexually active, not pregnant, not post-partum Catholic women who are using NFP to delay pregnancy. Of course, the survey itself reports that 11% of the sexually active, non-pregnant/postpartum Catholic women said that they are using no method whatsoever to avoid pregnancy, and another 4% marked "other" (meaning not NFP, but not really contraception either). This means that of the women who are between the ages of 15-44 who identify in some way as Catholic (even if never practicing), who are sexual active and capable of becoming pregnant, and who don't want to become pregnant, and who are willing to talk to the Guttmacher Institute about their sex lives, the number is not 98% of Catholics but rather 85% who use contraception. To echo Mr Hoopes, "The most shocking news, though, is that the White House is spreading false information about Catholicism in order to provide cover as it removes religious liberties for Catholic organizations."

RESIST THE TYRANT!

-----
[1] The United Church of Christ, for example, boasts 1.1 million members, which is fewer than the 0.02 x 70 million = 1.4 million Catholic women of childbearing age who have supposedly never used contraception.

[2] Indeed, the survey used admits that fewer than 1/3 of the respondents actually attended Mass at least once per week, which is a part of the bare minimum definition for what it means to be a practicing Catholic.
----
Update: Ye Olde Statistician, Mr Mike Flynn, has weighed in on the subject. He makes many of the same points I do, but in more depth and at greater length, and more eloquently to boot.

Draconian Strictures

The Obama administration appears to be considering a sort of compromise on its tyrannical HHS legislation. Well, if by a sort of compromise we mean a rewording of his oppressive fiat which changes a few of its accidents but none of its essence. It would still require Catholics to violate our consciences and to cooperate with a grave intrinsic evil. At best, he and his administration (or that part of the administration to which he is listening) have missed the point; at worst, it is a perfidious and duplicitous head fake meant to do damage control during an election year while allowing him to circumvent the Constitution. Of course, in the compromise it is no longer just the freedom of religion which will be subverted--though this will continue to happen, of course--but now also freedom of speech. After all, freedom of speech does mean that--baring slander and libel--we are free to say (or not say) what is on our minds; this means, among other things, that we are free to not tell people where they can go to get contraception, should we be so inclined (whether for religious reasons or no). Breaking both freedom of religion and free speech sounds like a truly draconian stricture [1].

Will you put aside your conscience and join us, for fellowship sake? No, I won't.

Of course, to listen to some people, it is the Church which has draconian strictures in this matter. She does, after all, continue to be the lone voice (more-or-less) telling people that contraception is harmful, both morally and spiritually if not also physically: and does so despite that only a very small minority (allegedly as few as 2% [2]) actually listen. She reminds us that contraception is, moreover, harmful to relationships, in particular to marriage: see the comparative divorce rates between NFP-practicing spouses and the general (largely contracepting) population. And all of this ignores the purely economics side of the case for NFP (and against contraception) [3]. The Church, in other words, preaches that quaint and "draconian" notion that husbands and wives ought to love one another as Christ loved His Church, and that a part of this love means working with the body's nature fertility cycle rather than trusting in technology to suppress it.

As for actual Catholics who practice NFP, since we are supposedly so rare, it might be worth listening to those few of us who actually do practice NFP to find out how "draconian" it is. We don't find it to be a burdensome restriction on our private lives; yes, there are times when it can be trying--but these are still times of growth and joy for us, and our relationship is stronger for it. Or, if you'd like to hear from somebody who isn't among that alleged 2% of Catholics--for the simple reason that he is not a Catholic--then listen to my friend Mr Nathanael Blake:

Our culture assumes that contraception is necessary and good, and that therefore free (well, someone still pays for it, but you know what I mean) contraception must be good.  Those of us who live contraception free should perhaps be more bold in presenting the alternative.  It is possible to live without contraception.  My lovely wife and I do not use it, and are happier for that.

The rule against using contraception may look like a "draconian stricture" from the outside looking in. But for those of us who actually practice NFP and thus live contraception-free, it is hardly a burden. Rather, its fruits include joy, peace, patients, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, self-control, and (yes) chastity. Of course, few people will try to live this way, because it is always easier to play at controlling nature than to work at controlling ourselves--myself and yourself--and our appetites. But therein lies the true stricture, because it is only when we learn to control ourselves that we become truly free.


--Footnotes--

[1] And my Friend Mr Nathanael Blake also raises another good point in his analysis of this supposed compromise when he writes that

"It annoys me that the Left, which likes to talk about the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they like sexually, doesn’t recognize any rights for consenting adults to agree on wages and compensation (including a health insurance package) in the workplace.  Nor are these adults apparently capable of anything if the government doesn’t force someone to give it to them.  If Bob the non-Catholic janitor isn’t adult enough to get his own contraception when his boss won’t give it to him for free, how is he adult enough to consent to sex?"

[2] And what is the source of this 2% number? Why, the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's former research arm. There's no reason for them to want to skew these statistics or anything, right? Of course, the 98% number of contraception-using Catholics represents how many Catholics have ever used contraception: a number which would, if honest, include those who used it once and regretted it, or those who used it as Protestants (for example) and then stopped upon converting to Catholicism, or those whom, as Mr Ross Douthat puts it, "are neither devout nor dissidents — Catholics who practice their faith intermittently, drifting away and then being tugged back, without having any particular desire to see its teachings changed to suit their lifestyles." Not to mention that not all Catholics are practicing Catholics (which means attending Mass at least once per week unless sick or traveling). Granted, there are quite a few Catholics who fall into none of these categories--either in the 2% who have never used contraception nor those who are opposed to its use (and largely don't use it)--quite probably a sizable majority of Catholics dissent in this matter. I suspect that the number of American Catholics who agree with (and practice) the Church teaching is closer to 10-20% of all Catholics--see, for example, pages 92 and 152 of this report--and that's including both practicing and non-practicing Catholics as "Catholics." And at 10%, this is a population of perhaps 7-8 million people, all of whom are getting along just fine with this "draconian" stricture. This is a body of people approximately equal in size to, say, the combined Jewish and Buddhist populations of the USA, or (alternatively) of the entire United Methodist Church in America, and the religious beliefs of at the very least this body of Catholics is under direct assault by the HHS mandate. Of course, if we're going to justify all of this based on something as frivolous as statistics and opinion polls, why not look at the broader opinion polls: which show that a flat-out majority of Americans oppose the tyrannical fiat that is the Obama administration's HHS mandate.

[3] For one thing, NFP is much cheaper, since it basically involves the cost for a course (the Couple to Couple league, for example, offers their course for $135 including materials), plus any later supplemental courses (postpartum and post-menopausal; as compared to the estimated $600/year which contraceptives cost, or for that matter sterilization (which runs in the thousands of dollars, and more if you ever change your mind). And, of course, NFP is every bit as effective--indeed often more so!-- as contraception: and that whether both are used correctly or typical use is compared!  This, without all the potential side-effects; and that effectiveness comparison ignores such things as the recent Pfizer recall, since of course these aren't actually contraceptives but rather placebos labelled as contraceptives.

RESIST THE TYRANT! Stand with the bishops, the Church, Faith Catholics, and people of good will for religious liberty against the Obama administration's HHS Mandate. And let the Obama Administration know that you won't stand for their mandate's unconscionable assault on religious liberty!
Update: the petition has been closed.

Seven Quick Takes (v 24): Seven Not Exactly Quick Thoughts on the HHS Mandate

--1--

You can always count on Fr Robbert Barron to have something insightful to say on any topic which touches on the Faith on the culture. Here is his discussion of the the tyrannical HHS mandate (tip of the cap to the American Catholic):

The secularist state wants Catholicism off the public stage and relegated to a private realm where it cannot interfere with secularism’s totalitarian agenda. I realize that in using that particular term, I’m dropping a rhetorical bomb, but I am not doing so casually. A more tolerant liberalism allows, not only for freedom of worship, but also for real freedom of religion, which is to say, the expression of religious values in the public square and the free play of religious ideas in the public conversation. Most of our founding fathers advocated just this type of liberalism. But there is another modality of secularism — sadly on display in the current administration — that is actively aggressive toward religion, precisely because it sees religion as its primary rival in the public arena.

In the video Fr Barron touches nicely on the idea of order, which is fundamental to a civilization. A key part of order is the moral order, and the moral fabric of society. Those who would force us to support their immorality by making us buy contraception for them against our own consciences are attacking this moral order. The end result will not be the destruction of the Church (which may nevertheless be forced to go underground, eventually, at least in the US); rather, it will be the collapse of our society.

--2--

As inevitably occurs in discussions of this nature*--namely, that people ought to have the right to exercise their consciences and that the government should not force these individuals to violate their consciences--the comparison was quickly drawn to taxpayer support of the military. Conscientious objectors to war should not be forced to pay taxes which support the military. This argument is ultimately fatally flawed for two reasons. First, the purpose of the military is to defend a country (and to keep the country's citizens safe and free from the whims of foreign powers); this might mean fighting in a war on occasion--but without that military, we could just as easily be embroiled in constant wars to keep invaders out. A military is "for" defending a country, whether or not this defense at some point requires that it go to war. Second, this is the use of taxpayer money to provide for a service which legitimately does belong to the government; but it does not actually force any individual qua individual to support a war, or for that matter the military. The HHS mandate does force this to happen by telling individuals--those who own or run private institutions--to violate their consciences directly by paying for things which they believe are immoral. A better analogy would be that this mandate is analogous to forcing conscientious objectors who own a company to purchase firearms and military training for all of their employees, whether those employees chose to claim either or not**.

*E.g. during the discussions and debates with my liberal-leaning friends concerning the original Obamacare mandate to provide for contraception and abortifacents; or during conversations concerning the thankfully failed FOCA.

**And even that is a bad analogy, since neither firearms nor military training are immoral, either by natural law of by the reasoning of such objectors, since both can be used and enjoyed without ever involving a war or even killing on a small scale.

--3--

It is worth noting--as Mr Ross Douthat does note--that the objectors to this round of tyranny do not merely include that supposed 2% of Catholics (some hundreds of thousands of individuals) in the US who do accept (and practice) the Church's teaching on contraception.

But of course they aren’t the only Catholics who have objected. Here Drum glosses over the complexities of religious faith and practice, which ensure that many Catholics’ relationship to the teachings of their Church is more complicated than a simple “agree or disagree.” There are Catholics who accept the Church’s view on contraception but simply don’t live up to it. There are Catholics who respect the general point of the teaching while questioning its application to every individual case. (My sense, elaborated here, is that the current pope has some sympathy for this perspective.) There are many American Catholics, as Daniel McCarthy noted in a perceptive interview recently, who are neither devout nor dissidents — Catholics who practice their faith intermittently, drifting away and then being tugged back, without having any particular desire to see its teachings changed to suit their lifestyles. And then there are Catholics (and this is a large category) who do explicitly dissent from Church teaching, but who also don’t want to see secular governments set the rules for what Catholic institutions can and cannot do. These are people who have been particularly vocal in the current debate (to their great credit), and their voices undercut the entire Drum thesis. If this issue a matter of conscience only for the “formal hierarchy of the Catholic Church,” then why is the White House taking so much criticism from Catholics with a reputation for disagreeing with the hierarchy — from Commonweal Catholics and National Catholic Reporter Catholics, from famous Catholic liberals like E.J. Dionne and Chris Matthews, Catholic Democrats like Tim Kaine and Bob Casey, Jr., and so on? The answer can’t be that they’re all afraid of the bishops, since we’ve just established that most Catholics don’t agree with the bishops on this issue. Something else is going on here.

--4--

Speaking of that 2% number (or 98%): it comes from the rather partisan Guttmacher Institute. That is, the institute which was formerly the research arm of Murder Inc, a.k.a. Planned Parenthood. Hmm. But potential bias aside, it is worth noting that this is 98% of Catholics who have at some point in time used contraception. That's a very poor measurement for how many actually support the Church's teaching on this matter. For starters, there are those Catholics who, as Mr Douthat notes above, "practice their faith intermittently, drifting away and then being tugged back, without having any particular desire to see its teachings changed to suit their lifestyles." It also must include people like by colleague at IGNITUM TODAY, Mrs Sarah Babbs, who shares about her own experience with contraception:

Even though we knew it was wrong, we got some condoms. We closed the door on God and said, “Sorry, but just this once, you are uninvited.”

And it was awful. Maybe it was because we had only made love for the first time four days before, and the memory of sex the way it is supposed to be was still fresh in our minds. Or maybe it was just because we both knew we were violating out consciences and each other, but it was just terrible.

We would rather go without sex than to ever use contraception again.

I wonder how many such people can share a similar story--all of whom are lumped by these statistics within the 98% of Catholics who supposedly dissent from Church teachings. Indeed, the statistic is, if not patently false, at the very least very misleading: if 98% are really actively using contraception, then why are there so many Catholic children continuing to be born?

--5--

Of course, as others have noted, the number of Catholics who are actually in agreement with their own Church's teachings on this matter is irrelevant. The erosion of liberty for all of us begins with the deliberate erosion of the liberties of some small number of us for the sake or convenience or satisfying selfish interests.

--6--

In reference to this post by Mr Jimmy Akin, a friend of mine stated that "the use of phrases such as 'The Mind of Evil' betrays a tone of fanaticism." He later added, "And I would like to (respectfully) assert my use of the term fanatic here as describing one who is willing to dismantle society for their ideological beliefs (not just religious, see: Chinese Cultural Revolution)." Given this definition, his comment on Mr Akin's post is, to be blunt, laughable. The foundation of any society is order, as Edmund Burke (and others) have noted. But order is not the same thing as "Do whatever the government says, even if it violates the moral law and/or your own conscience. Or else": that is rather totalitarianism. There is much more to order than this--social and moral order are more fundamental to society than the order imposed by the government. Ideally, the three should work together, reinforcing each other; occasionally, one may become preeminent, as when a government imposes martial law during a time of anarchy and upheaval. But note that even martial law does not (or does not per se) violate the moral order, as this HHS mandate will. As my wife remarked over breakfast a few days ago, the fundamental building block of society is the family: which this mandate does attack. I'd go a step further by noting, along with Christopher Dawson, that the foundation of culture is the cult (that is, the religion): and this mandate very clearly attacks that by attacking the freedom of the Catholic Church. So it is not Mr Akin (nor myself) who is the fanatic here: it is the Obama administration and their enablers and supporters.

--7--

Finally, another friend objected to my classification of Obama's (and Sebelius', and Pelosi's for that matter) motivation in decreeing (or supporting) this mandate as being motivated "from sheer spite, from malice against the Church whom they view as their enemy." If not motivated y spite or malice, it is certainly motivated from hostility towards the Catholic Church (meaning in this case the Church's Magisterium, and those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church). The objection stems from the idea that few people act on such a large scale from spite or malice or hostility alone: can I not at least concede that they are acting for what they believe to be the common good? Aside that one of the more common objections to the "Catholic" (which in this case means "freedom loving") position is, as summarized by Mr Mark Shea, "We have the power to make you crawl. So there." This mandate is a rather blatant and frankly naked exercise of the raw power of the state to attack the Church, albeit through the institutions which she runs (educations, healthcare, etc). It specifically targets Catholics (which other large or recognizable organization would decline, let alone refuse, to provide this coverage in their insurance policies?), and it does so for no particularly good reason. It is an attempt to advance a specific social agenda by using the power of government to force dissenters from that agenda in line.

I suppose we could argue that this isn't really just a matter of malice, spite, or even hostility, that Obama et al. really believe that this is for the common good (giving them the benefit of the doubt) or at the least that it will serve some interest or other of Obama's (e.g. that it will rally the troops for his re-election, in which case: FAIL!). But by the same reasoning, we could argue that (almost) any larger atrocity was really done for something rather than malice, spite, or hostility toward the group against which it was committed. Thus, for example, the Soviet gulags weren't created from hostility (or malice, or spite) against the political dissidents of the Soviet Union, but rather to ensure the stability of the union under soviet rule without the risk of further rebellions.

RESIST THE TYRANT!
-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog--guest hosted this week by Mrs Hallie Lord.

Three Analogies

Since this whole tyrannical HHS-mandate business broke, the most common analogy which I've seen as a comparison for this mandate is that it is "like" requiring Jewish or Muhammedan store to sell pork. Another version is that it is like requiring Muslims delis to make ham sandwiches. And this is a decent analogy as far as it goes, since it would be a violation of those peoples' rights to live as their consciences (and religions) dictate and to at the very least not cooperate in somebody else's decision to go against those religious edict. And for so long as this debate is not about contraception but rather is about religious liberty, the analogy is fair. However, this analogy falls (or at the least could fall) under the same category as would a law requiring Catholic restaurants to serve meat on Fridays during Lent: it strikes at a particular religious practice (abstaining from meat on Fridays), but few Catholics--even faithful ones--would necessarily begrudge their non-Catholic customers a steak on Friday. Eating meat on a Friday in Lent for Catholics--or pork for Muslims and Jews--is immoral as a matter of religious discipline (albeit perhaps an unchangeable one in the case of Jews and Muslims), something done because the Church (or God) commands it but not necessarily because it does any particular moral harm to individuals or society.

An analogy of this latter type would be an HHS mandate requiring that all employers provide their employees with two packs of cigarettes per day free-of-charge. Better, it is analogous to a decree that all charities must provide their homeless beneficiaries those two packs of cigarettes. Not every homeless person (or employee) will smoke these cigarettes, but some will. The action is not immoral per se, but it would be immoral to the extent that we know the harmful effects of these cigarettes, and to the extent that we are providing so many as to greatly enhance the chance of cancer developing. It would b downright Machievellian in the case of the charities, as they would effectively be ordered to target the poor for extermination, albeit slowly. Any number of people would rightly object to this for its ultimately harmful effects on society--and Faithful Catholics do see the HHS mandate as being harmful to society even when we ignore the erosion of religious liberties resulting therefrom-- though in the "free cigarettes" case religious rights are not trampled underfoot.

Here then is a third analogy. Suppose every institution, whether owned by individual of religious persuasion or not, and whether run by religious denominations, sects, or the Church or not, were required to purchase a subscription to a pornography website or magazine for all of their employees. This would violate not only the consciences of Catholics, but also of observant Protestants of many stripes, not to mention Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, some feminist groups, etc. It would be a blatant violation of religious liberty on all counts. And aside from that, it would transgress the natural law, and arguably (at the least!) be detrimental to society as a whole, and in particular to the building blocks of society (the family) and perhaps worse. If such a mandate was passed, there would rightly be a large-scale outcry (just as there is for the actual HHS mandate), even if significant majorities of people from all denominations or sects have at some point used pornography.

Indeed, there is a lot in common between the two, that is, between pornography and contraception. Both flout the natural law, both are opposed by the Catholic Church, both lead to the destruction of  the family life, both might be indicated in the higher divorce rates, both encourage sexual partners (formerly known as "spouses") to use and degrade each other, both promise easy and responsibility-free sexual gratification, both are touted in some circles as a promising (and technical) solution to our society's (moral) problems, and both fail to deliver on that promise. And both are freely available to anyone who want access to them without requiring any employers--let alone religiously affiliated ones--to pay for their distribution.