Much to Adam's Relief: The Resurrection

We can come across an idea or insight that completely changes the way we think about something.  We could be in a terrible place in our life and not even know it.  The Resurrection is a good place to find new meaning.

The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a vast and underdeveloped piece of real estate for gaining direction in our lives.  There is an unfortunate tendency in the Church today to think that the resurrection of one’s body is of little consequence for the way we ought to live.  Of course, seeing the world in a predominantly spiritual way is the right thing to do. We think of life on earth and eternal life through the eyes of the Spirit we might say.  Unfortunately, however, the complete elimination of the importance of the meaning of the human body from the concept of human salvation is not an authentic Catholic approach.  Practically, many of us make the mistake of thinking that it is enough to let Jesus Christ bear the cross on which He battles against evil, while we remain bystanders. 

Are we to expect the salvation of our souls without living righteously for Him while here in our mortal bodies?  Jesus manifests His wounded, side, hands and feet to the Apostles thus showing them and us that sin has a lasting effect.  Doesn’t He mean that we too must bear this fight in our own bodies? On a more positive note, when He eats fish in front of them, isn’t this action reinforcing the fact that the human body, with its affections, is important in the Resurrection, in Eternity?  Even if Grandma is experiencing perfect happiness in Heaven, her happiness will increase when she gets her body back.  Our bodies have meaning.  Everything about the human body has meaning. And the harm done to the human person, both body and soul, is something that must be healed by the power of the grace of Christ.  The Great Physician gives us the medicine of salvation, but in and through our bodies we must follow our Divine Doctor's orders: “You must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me.” (Mt 16:24)

Here is another point to ponder.  Isn’t it interesting, as the Acts of the Apostles says, that the Son of Man’s life was exchanged for the life of a murderer?  Peter said, “You denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.” (Acts 3:14) What an indictment that is!  What does a murderer do?  He kills the body.  So the one who saved the human person through the Resurrection of the body, through restoring life to the body, is put to death instead of one whose true crime was killing the body.

It has been quite clear since the beginning of time that sin destroys the body.  This was always Satan’s intent.  He hates the human body.  Jesus was put to death in the body on account of sin and conquers Satan through this as He rises from the dead.  Sin enters into human history as a rejection of God at the same time as its bite injects its deadly poison into the human body.  The first sin is disobedience to God born out of distrust for His creation.  He created the human person, masculine and feminine, with all their differences and with each of their bodies being gifted for their proper roles on earth. 

Adam would have understood immediately the meaning of the wounded side of Christ.  We can surely imagine Adam gazing upon the Crucifixion as the lance opened Jesus’ side. The Old Adam would know and understand the importance of this because it is from his side that the first woman came.  From the side of Christ, the New Adam, flow the blood and water that give life to the bride of Christ, the Church.  He would know that this New Man does not run.  He does not shrink from the protection of His bride and He most certainly does not cause her to sin.  He helps her avoid sinning, all the time.  Even now, we can almost hear the sigh of relief as Adam witnesses, first hand, the undoing of his failure.

So Adam, where are you? Man of today, where are you?  Are you an old Adam or a new Adam?  Where are you, Adam, when your bride, your Eve, is subject to the threat of losing her soul through disobedience to God? Is she going to suffer anew on your account? Her body is at risk of suffering for all eternity because you would allow her to be used for an immoral purpose.  You Christian men, today, do you respect your wives, your beloved, your female friends and acquaintances? Are you like the old Adam or the new Adam, Jesus?  Do you distrust her body?  Do you seek to distort the feminine beauty of her body by pressure to do things below her human and feminine dignity? Do you distort the truth of love for the female body? Do you women distrust your own bodies? Do you fall prey to the domination that came from the fall so present in our culture?  You see, this is the root of the current crisis that the bishops are battling with the President.  That is why there is such a moral problem with contraception and sterilization.  They are sins against the body.  They are sins of distrust of God and his creation of the body.  These acts are choices for the life of the original murderer, the ancient serpent, over the life of the Savior whose body is given up to nourish the Church. They are sins against the Resurrection.

The power of the Resurrected Man, Christ, the New Adam, gives us, also, the model of the Church, the mother of those baptized into Christ.  When we approach Him at the altar, He gives us His body, consummating His love for His Bride, the Church.  Members of the Church must let this Lord lead them to a new respect for the body and human love.  Let Him be the model of relations between man and woman.  Science supports us in this. There have been many advances in the sciences in recent decades that fully support the way human beings were made, male and female, and are consistent with Christ’s teaching in the Church.  This new knowledge will allow you to live in accordance with God’s plan for your life.  This will help you faithfully and intelligently plan your family without offending God.  Please contact me if you want to learn more. 

This is your second chance, Adam.  Do not let the serpent bite you again.

For more information  check this website:  http://www.popepaulvi.com.

Contraception Insults God!

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and from it flow all the other mysteries of the faith.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that this mystery is the mystery of “God in himself.” All that is revealed about the meaning of God’s creation, particularly the image of God, male and female, is built upon this most fundamental and essential teaching.


The life to which men and women are called from the moment of their creation is found precisely in friendship with God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.  This pattern inherited from the Most Holy Trinity, a unity of life and love, is essential to all human relationships, and, in a particular way, to that special form of friendship between husband and wife.  Spousal love that is authentically human, after the communion of the Most Holy Trinity, is open to new life.  Why?  Because God, Love, is the source of all life and generates new life.  To prevent life is to kill love.  To step in and block the gift of the human faculty of generating new life is an insult to God who created that power.


From the beginning of the Church, in fidelity to the teaching of the Jesus regarding the human person and human love, she has expressed the truth about the Most Holy Trinity in the moral principle that being faithful in marriage means that every act of marital must be open to life.  Throughout the Church’s 2000 year history this truth about the human person and human sexuality has been taught consistently by the Church’s pastors. Practically, this means that doing anything to prevent the procreative end of the marital act is an offense against the pattern of human married love who is God Himself.  The time since the formulation of the first oral contraceptive pill, which prevents life, has been devastating for family life because the family is patterned on God.  Now, sexually transmitted diseases are epidemic, as many people divorce as remain married, and almost half of all children born in the US are born out of wedlock.


A report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states, “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 98 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method.” A significant portion of this percentage is attributable to the “pill,” now in use for slightly over 50 years.


The moral teaching in the Catechism is clear: contraception in all its forms is a grave sin and intrinsically evil. When the Catechism says intrinsically evil, it means there is no motive that would allow one to contracept directly. More serious still are the forms that can result in the death of the embryo, such as the pill. 


Given the very clear teaching on the matter and the widespread use of contraceptives, particularly the pill, over the last 50 years, the Church in the US is faced with a chronic and pervasive pastoral problem.  It would be a mistake, however, to think that this problem is one that is only practical--only a failure of priests to teach or in the failure of the faithful to adhere to this teaching.  What is missing is the authentic concept of the human person that the Church has a duty to uphold in society.  It is the Church’s responsibility to stand as a beacon in society, illuminating the truth about the dignity of the human person.  What is lacking, however, in the preaching and teaching of many of the Church's pastors is that pastoral connection between the sin of contraception and the loss of the sense of human dignity.

The loss of human dignity associated with the rise to dominance of the pill and other forms of contraceptives in the place of human love provokes a profound sense of sadness.  Men and women united in the state of Holy Matrimony have received the gift and responsibility of showing the world a reflection of the mystery of  “God in himself.”  From that perspective, the sadness of the matter comes not so much from the sin committed, which God forgives and heals, as from the good that is lost.

Within the Church many of us, priests and lay faithful, are living with a woefully impoverished concept of the human person.  We have all but replaced the concept of the human person modeled upon the Most Holy Trinity with a false concept that leaves little room for vigorous faith and authentic human love, something we need to work to rediscover.  The only way we could be content with the status quo is to give in to the materialistic notion that life requires choices of economic prudence over the value of the divine image.  When we rediscover the truth of the Most Holy Trinity as the divine pattern for love and believe again in who we are, Catholics, all Christians, and many others will, again, see the pill for the awful curse upon the human family that it is.

(For about 12 years I wrote editiorials for the St. Louis Review.  I wrote this in 2010 and reworked it here for the blog.)

The Evil of the Mandate

We are going to hear all sorts of attempts to accommodate the President's Mandate "accommodation" within Catholic ranks.  The chiefs of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association were obviously given the advance notice they needed to be ready to give the President the shout out on this. There will be many more. They will all make their comments based upon convoluted, moralistic platitudes about the good of providing universal access to health care which, they say, trumps participation in moral evil.  These positions will be mortally flawed.  Will they be corrected?  I would hope so.

Willing cooperation in grave evil in order to secure a benefit for oneself makes the person who cooperates equally guilty of the grave evil.  What is the goal, exactly, of agreeing with the President on this?  Is it because those who go along with the President's mandate want people to have access to these so-called preventive services?  If so, the cooperation in the program of contraception, sterilization, and chemical abortions is immoral and gravely sinful.  Is it because they want to maintain government funding and the ability to "serve" the general public?  The cooperation is still gravely sinful.

In fact, it is quite clear that these agencies and their affiliated institutions cannot cooperate in this plan to provide abortion, sterilization, or contraceptives.  Indeed, this plan of the President's is morally evil, in itself.  It is what moral theology and Catholic doctrine refer to as "intrinsic evil."  Yes, that's right.  The plan itself, not just the acts of abortion, contraception and sterilization, is intrinsically evil.

Please see the following Doctrinal Statement issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on March 13, 1975.  It was called "Quecumque sterilizatio." Some will argue that this doctrinal statement does not apply because we are talking about health insurance plans and not the health care institution as the statement does.  I say, however, that this is a distinction without a difference.  As a matter of fact, on the basis of principles espoused in the document itself, one must conclude that providing the approval of a plan for such gravely immoral actions across a wide array of institutions and circumstances is itself a greater evil than a plan which consents to the evil in one single institution. 

I will post later on the abortion drug issue. 

For convenience sake, I have highlighted some of the more pertinent elements of the CDF's statement.  

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING STERILIZATION IN CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

This Sacred Congregation has diligently considered not only the problem of contraceptive sterilization for therapeutic purposes but also the opinions indicated by different people toward a solution, and the conflicts relative to requests for cooperation in such sterilizations in Catholic hospitals. The Congregation has resolved to respond to these questions in this way:  

1. Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical Magisterium, especially of Pius XII¹. Therefore, notwithstanding any subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care or prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden according to the doctrine of the Church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.  

Neither can any mandate of public authority, which would seek to impose direct sterilization as necessary for the common good, be invoked, for such sterilization damages the dignity and inviolability of the human person². Likewise, neither can one invoke the principle of totality in this case, in virtue of which principal interference with organs is justified for the greater good of the person; sterility intended in itself is not oriented to the integral good of the person as rightly pursued “the proper order of goods being preserved”³ inasmuch as it damages the ethical good of the person, which is the highest good, since it deliberately deprives foreseen and freely chosen sexual activity of an essential element. Thus article 20 of the medical-ethics code promulgated by the conference in 1971 faithfully reflects the doctrine which is to be held, and its observance should be urged. 

2. The Congregation, while it confirms this traditional doctrine of the Church, is not unaware of the dissent against this teaching from many theologians. The Congregation, however, denies that doctrinal significance can be attributed to this fact as such, so as to constitute a “theological source” which the faithful might invoke and thereby abandon the authentic Magisterium, and follow the opinions of private theologians which dissent from it⁴. 

3. Insofar as the management of Catholic hospitals is concerned:  

a) Any cooperation which involves the approval or consent of the hospitals to actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end, namely, in order that the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed by the sterilized subject be impeded, is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil. The Catholic hospital cannot cooperate with this for any reason. Any cooperation so supplied is totally unbecoming the mission entrusted to this type of institution and would be contrary to the necessary proclamation and defense of the moral order. 

b) The traditional doctrine regarding material cooperation, with the proper distinctions between necessary and free, proximate and remote, remains valid, to be applied with the utmost prudence, if the case warrants. 

c) In the application of the principle of material cooperation, if the case warrants, great care must be taken against scandal and the danger of any misunderstanding by an appropriate explanation of what is really being done. 

This Sacred Congregation hopes that the criteria recalled in this letter will satisfy the expectations of that episcopate, in order that, with the uncertainties of the faithful cleared up, the Bishops might more easily respond to their pastoral duty. 

Franjo Cardinal Šeper
Prefect 

Most Rev. Jérôme Hamer, O.P.  Titular Archbishop of Lorium 

Secretary 

l. Cf. especially the two Allocutions to the Catholic Union of Obstetricians and to the International Society of Hematology: AAS 43 (1951) 843-844; 50 (1958) 734-737 and in the encyclical of Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-491.
2. Cf. Pius XI, the encyclical Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930) 565.
3. Paul VI, the encyclical Humanae Vitae: AAS 60 (1968) 487.
4. Cf. Vatican Council II, constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25, 1: AAS 57 (1965) 29-30; Pius XII, Allocution to the Most Reverend Cardinals: AAS 46 (1954) 672; the encyclical Humani Generis: AAS 42 (1950) 568; Paul VI, Allocution to the meeting regarding the theology of Vatican Council II: AAS 58 (1966) 889-896 (especially 890-894); Allocution to the Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer: AAS 59 (1967) 960-963 (especially 962).

 

Dr. Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, On the President's Decision

The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril

Dr. Albert Mohler is a good Southern Baptist, a staunch Evangelical, and I appreciate that. I am sure that he is quite brilliant, as well. He has posted many excellent commentaries which I enjoy reading even when he forthrightly declares that the Catholic Church is wrong.  It's a breath of fresh air, really.  He is the kind of fellow with whom I would want to engage in serious ecumenical dialogue.  When it comes to the Catholic Church, Dr. Mohler gives credit where credit is due. Refreshingly, as I indicated, he also calls it like he sees it when he thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on a theological matter. He has often said,"A true evangelical, committed to the Gospel as recovered in the Reformation, and a true Roman Catholic, committed to the teachings of the magisterium, are the last two people on earth who can have an honest disagreement." See what I mean?

In this post, he comments on the President's decision to require religious institutions to violate God's teaching:  "Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business."  Good stuff.

OK. So Here's My Question...

Will the Bishops' Conference deal with those of its own house before suing the U S Government?


In the USCCB Media Blog of Tuesday, January, 24, 2012, concerning the recent Obama Administration ruling that Catholic institutions have to cover sterilizations and contraceptives (including abortion-causing agents), we read:

This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences. Some claim this is all about access to contraceptives—but everyone knows how and where to get them, and get them cheaply. And the mandate also forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. This is about forcing the church to pay for all these things through insurance coverage, to sponsor these “benefits” that it considers immoral. This is, in other words, about freedom of religion, which is a foundation stone of U.S. democracy.

The government allows other religions to live out their beliefs. The Amish and Christian Scientists have a conscientious objection to health insurance, and so the law exempts them from buying it. The government acknowledges the right of these religious groups to live out their religious convictions in U.S. society. Why are beliefs of Catholics and others dismissed? USCCB Media Blog: "Anybody but Catholics Has Religious Freedom.

The course seems clear. If the administration persists, this is going to court.  So, my question, from a priest, moral theologian, interested party, cheerleader for the bishops, and adherent to the authority of the magisterium, (the list goes on) is will the conference of bishops, or individual bishops, now correct individual Catholic legislators and administration officials who support these abridgments of the Church's freedom by pursuing the moral and canonical measures available?  As we know, the bishops' conference has chosen not to speak in favor of adherence to the Church's long-standing, well-established, and incontrovertible moral tradition regarding the refusal of admission of public sinners to Holy Communion in the case of formal cooperation in abortion (referring to those politicians who promote and vote for the so-called right to abortion)--and it should be clear that the administration of Holy Communion to such public sinners entails cooperation in sacrilege and the sin of scandal on the part of the minister of Holy Communion.

Will the bishops' conference find in these offenses, the offenses against conscience and religious freedom committed by Kathleen Sebelius and others involved, serious enough reason to say that these actions are scandalous enough public sin to require that the ministers of Holy Communion not cooperate in the scandal and ensuing sacrileges involved in the reception of Holy Communion by these public sinners?  If the bishops conference is willing to take the US Government to civil court to fight this on a legal basis, to have these offenses declared unconstitutional by government standards, has the time not come, as well, to say that the individuals involved in this should have to publicly repent from their moral and canonical offenses before being admitted to Holy Communion?

"Time is Running Out"

Cardinal-Designate Dolan: "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."  http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-013.cfm, January 22, 2012.

I could not help but reflect upon the battle ahead in light of the 3rd Sunday Readings (OF)

"Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed….”  God gave this prophetic message to Jonah as a sentence upon a nation that had become very proud of its own greatness.  Thoroughly convinced of the wisdom and power of its own leaders, prophets, and achievements, it could not recognize its need to seek true wisdom and enlightenment of the omnipotent Father of all creation.  God, in his mercy, sent Jonah to proclaim repentance. 

“The time is running out.” To this people and their leader, the sentiment expressed in the words uttered by St. Paul, though yet to be spoken, seemed to be understood and to resonate in spite of Nineveh’s (the Assyrian Kingdom's) dominance, prosperity, and all around good fortune. 

"This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand.” Words like these and concern about the judgment of God have certainly been prominent throughout the history of the Church.  When our Blessed Lord comes in the flesh, he begins his public ministry with the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. “Repent, and believe in the gospel."

This past week, events have occurred which should direct us to meditate on these important and prophetic words. 

An alarm was sounded in the address the Holy Father gave to some of the bishops from the US making their 5 year visit to the Holy See.  He said there, “It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” He mentioned the need to be convinced of the seriousness of these threats. “Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” Then he pointed to two specific problems, the denial of the right to refuse to be part of evil practices and the denial of the respect for freedom of conscience.

He was referring to efforts on the part of the administration to require that Catholic organizations provide sterilizations and chemical abortions to employees in their health care insurance plans.  This would mean, as well, that Catholic hospitals, Catholic doctors and nurses and other health care workers would be required to participate in these things against their conscience.  This will mean that Church-run universities and hospitals will have to participate in these plans. The Department of Health and Human Services has given us one year to comply.  “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What do you think of all of this? Citizens of the United States? Woe to you. What do you think I will do when the government tells me to do this, to keep my mouth shut, or support this?  ["Looming over the entire exemption is the regulation’s language that HHS “may” exempt churches within the provision’s narrow scope. Nothing aside from the government’s interest in avoiding a court battle stands in the way of simply refusing to exempt even a Catholic diocese from the contraceptive mandate." Patrick Reilly, "The Fight To Be Catholic, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-fight-to-be-catholic, January 22, 2012.] What will you do when I am removed from this parish, fined, or put in jail for refusal to participate or for teaching against these evils?  I assure you, I will not go against my conscience or the Church’s teaching on this. You judges, you lawyers, you legislators, you politicians, you police officers? What will you do?   What will you do when your doctor is suspended from his or her practice for violating these laws? Woe to you.

Perhaps hearing all of this is distressing to you. It is more than that to me.  Hearken, therefore, to the words of Jesus: "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."  And to those of St. Paul: “The time is running out.”

I would like to be able to tell you that the Holy Father, Cardinal-Designate Dolan, and the many others who have voiced their alarm are just crying wolf.  They are not. (Really, I ask, how often do we get anything that straightforward from the Pope or a major prelate when it comes to our government's actions?  It must be bad!) We must be convinced, more than ever, that we need the power of God to assist us in this spiritual battle to protect our freedom and the right to live out our faith as followers of Christ.

Sterilization by the State

This Dec. 9, 2011 article in the New York Times, North Carolina's Eugenic Past, is highly recommended to you.  I have been looking at this issue for a number of years.  One of the ironies of the article's appearance in the New York Times is that the Eugenics movement was a largely an offshoot of the Progressive Movement, a movement which the NYT most certainly clings to with ideological blinders. It would be surprising that the NYT would print such an article but for the fact that the editors either do not know the history of the movement or they think that most people would not be aware of its roots. Eugenic sterilization was promoted by Margaret Sanger and eugenics was her reason for founding the Birth Control League, which became Planned Parenthood.  Her motives were racist to the core.  For more information check out www.blackgenocide.org.  I am not sure of everything that one finds on that site because I have not read everything there, but there is a good bit of information about the racism behind abortion and birth control.  I have found the site to be informative.

State enforced sterilization was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Buck v. Bell, 1927.  In the opinion of the court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., himself a Progressive, wrote, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." This comment is striking because the eugenics movement held that poverty, crime, etc., --that is to say, all the so-called undesirable types-- could be wiped out in three generations.

Pope Pius XI was among the most prominent and reasoned critics of the eugenic sterilization movement.  Of course, he saw immediately the relationship between the eugenics movement and the rise of socialism in Europe and the United States.  For the benefit of the social whole, sterilize and kill the "less desirables."