Subsidiarity

I’m no expert on subsidiarity.  But upon reading this article,  a thought occurred to me:

You would think that the smaller a population, the more amenable to central government; and when the population grows larger, that breaking up the government into more local units would be better and more efficient, since that would enable it to be more responsive to local preferences and respectful of local culture. Otherwise, the proportionate amount of power and influence that each citizen (or neighborhood, or town) wields over government policy would dwindle over time.

Our country seems to be doing the opposite: When it was newer and smaller, government was less centralized. Now that our population is over 300 million, government seems to be getting more and more concentrated at the national level.

Or is it just me? Do you feel that you are gaining more of a say over government policy as time goes on, or less? (Or is there no change?)

To make provision for future doubt, is to doubt at present – Part 2

This [the prior post] is my first remark, and now I go on to a second. You may easily conceive, my brethren, that they who are entering the Church, or at least those who have entered it, have more than faith; that they have some portion of Divine love also. They have heard in the Church of the charity of Him who died for them, and who has given them His Sacraments as the means of conveying the merits of His death to their souls, and they have felt more or less in those poor souls of theirs the beginnings of a responsive charity drawing them to Him.

Now, does it stand with a loving trust, better than with faith, for a man to anticipate the possibility of doubting or denying the great mercies in which he is rejoicing?

Take an instance; what would you think of a friend whom you loved, who could bargain that, in spite of his present trust in you, he might be allowed some day to doubt you? who, when a thought came into his mind, that you were playing a game with him, or that you were a knave, or a profligate, did not drive it from him with indignation, or laugh it away for its absurdity, but considered that he had an evident right to indulge it, nay, should be wanting in duty to himself, unless he did? Would you think that your friend trifled with truth, that he was unjust to his reason, that he was wanting in manliness, that he was hurting his mind if he shrank from the thought? or would you not call him cruel and miserable if he did not?

* * *

Well, pass on to a higher subject;—could a man be said to trust in God, and to love God, who was familiar with doubts whether there was a God at all, or who bargained that, just as often as he pleased, he might be at liberty to doubt whether God was good, or just or mighty; and who maintained that, unless he did this, he was but a poor slave, that his mind was in bondage, and could render no free acceptable service to his Maker; that the very worship which God approved was one attended with a caveat, on the worshipper’s part, that he did not promise to render it tomorrow; that he would not answer for himself that some argument might not come to light, which he had never heard before, which would make it a grave, moral duty in him to suspend his judgment and his devotion?

Why, I should say, my brethren, that that man was worshipping his own mind, his own dear self and not God; ….

The argument is the same, in its degree, when applied to the Church; she speaks to us as a messenger from God,—how can a man who feels this, who comes to her, who falls at her feet as such, make a reserve, that he may be allowed to doubt her at some future day? Let the world cry out, if it will, that his reason is in fetters; let it pronounce that he is a bigot, unless he reserves his right of doubting; but he knows full well himself that he would be an ingrate and a fool, if he did. Fetters, indeed! yes, “the cords of Adam,” the fetters of love, these are what bind him to the Holy Church; he is, with the Apostle, the slave of Christ, the Church’s Lord; united (never to part, as he trusts, while life lasts), to her Sacraments, to her Sacrifices, to her Saints, to the Blessed Mary her advocate, to Jesus, to God.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, essay entitled “Faith and Doubt” from Discourses to Mixed Congregations (paragraph breaks added).

To make provision for future doubt, is to doubt at present

Just as Cardinal Newman argued that present faith and present doubt are incompatible, it’s equally incompatible with faith to allow for the possibility of future doubt:

It is … perfectly true, that the Church does not allow her children to entertain any doubt of her teaching; and that, first of all, simply for this reason, because they are Catholics only while they have faith, and faith is incompatible with doubt. No one can be a Catholic without a simple faith, that what the Church declares in God’s name, is God’s word, and therefore true. A man must simply believe that the Church is the oracle of God; he must be as certain of her mission, as he is of the mission of the Apostles. Now, would any one ever call him certain that the Apostles came from God, if after professing his certainty, he added, that perhaps he might have reason to doubt one day about their mission? Such an anticipation would be a real, though latent, doubt, betraying that he was not certain of it at present. A person who says, “I believe just at this moment, but perhaps I am excited without knowing it, and I cannot answer for myself, that I shall believe tomorrow,” does not believe now. …

When, then, Protestants quarrel with us for saying that those who join us must give up all ideas of ever doubting the Church in time to come, they do nothing else but quarrel with us for insisting on the necessity of faith in her. Let them speak plainly; our offence is that of demanding faith in the Holy Catholic Church; it is this, and nothing else. I must insist upon this: faith implies a confidence in a man’s mind, that the thing believed is really true; but, if it is once true, it never can be false. If it is true that God became man, what is the meaning of my anticipating a time when perhaps I shall not believe that God became man? this is nothing short of anticipating a time when I shall disbelieve a truth. And if I bargain to be allowed in time to come not to believe, or to doubt, that God became man, I am but asking to be allowed to doubt or disbelieve what I hold to be an eternal truth. I do not see the privilege of such a permission at all, or the meaning of wishing to secure it:—if at present I have no doubt whatever about it, then I am but asking leave to fall into error; if at present I have doubts about it, then I do not believe it at present, that is, I have not faith. But I cannot both really believe it now, and yet look forward to a time when perhaps I shall not believe it; to make provision for future doubt, is to doubt at present. It proves I am not in a fit state to become a Catholic now. I may love by halves, I {217} may obey by halves; I cannot believe by halves: either I have faith, or I have it not.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, essay entitled “Faith and Doubt” from Discourses to Mixed Congregations (emphasis added).

Trinity Sunday

O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!  How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways!  For “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?  Or who has first given to Him, that recompense should be made Him?”  For from Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things.  To Him be the glory forever.  Amen.

First Reading of Trinity Sunday (Rom. 11:33-36), New Roman Missal (Fr. Lasance), 1956.

 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.  Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.  And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4.

 

The myth of sexual pressure

There is today a societal myth that our sexuality is like a pressure cooker that inevitably explodes if we don’t find release for it. This myth is not true. This is a product of our sex-conscious, pornography saturated culture. Desires have to be fed in thought and action. If we feed sexual desires by constantly thinking about it, making it a central part of our lives, viewing pornography, constantly wishing and craving it, eventually we will give in and commit sin. But the pressure builds as a consequence of our own choices of thought and action-it doesn’t build on its own. If we don’t attend to it, if we don’t let it continually plague our minds, if we aren’t constantly turning our thoughts to it, if we eschew pornography and masturbation and other ways of titilating our minds, the pressure simply doesn’t build in the same way. We have agency in these matters-and our moral agency extends to our thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors.

From a comment by “AttemptedDiscipleship” on the Millennial Star blog.

Do Mormons know the real Christ?

For a long while I have deliberately refrained from anything which might be construed as “attacking” the Mormon religion. When I was younger I thought Mormons needed to be “enlightened” by being told the “truth” about Mormonism, and the more directly the better. But after many bitter, fruitless battles, I came to realize that that tactic was a waste of time and energy. I had been baffled as to how Mormons could remain Mormon after hearing what I had to say. But with the passing of years I have realized that there is a lot more to people than meets the eye.

In any event, I gave up the “attacking” tactic and started trying to be patient and respectful, and seeing if I could learn what makes Mormons tick. I had obviously been missing something. What was it?

A lot, as it turns out. When you approach Mormons as a friend instead of an adversary, you see a whole different side to things. For one, you see that the similarity between Mormonism and other Christian faiths is apparently more than skin deep. What you thought was simply a fake Christ, is not so easy to dismiss.

I have been listening to a series of lectures on how the early Christian Church came to adopt some of the methods and forms of classical culture, philosophical and rhetorical methods, literary forms, etc. Some of the early proponents of doing so argued that even when people didn’t know Christ, nevertheless whatever they said and thought which was good belonged to Christ since he was the Logos, the source of truth and reason. Therefore Christians should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Rather they should sift through the fruits of classical culture and keep what was good, discarding only what lacked merit, and putting what was worthy to the service of Christ.

If the good produced by the ancient Greek and Roman pagans belonged to Christ, why not the good produced by Mormons? How can we say that people who actively profess the name of Christ, have nothing good which is attributable to Christ, while attributing the good in those who never even claimed to know Christ, to Christ?

Lest anyone worry (or for that matter be unduly hopeful), I’m not a Mormon and have no plans of becoming one. I have posted previously on whether Mormons are Christians (see also this), so I think my position on that is clear. After all, even if the good in the Greek and Roman pagan systems of thought was attributed by some to Christ, they still were not called Christians. But it becomes clearer to me how a non-Christian (according to my definition) religion can have some of the outward marks of a Christian religion. And it’s not unreasonable to suppose that Christ himself guides and inspires devout Mormons insofar as they are striving to live in accord with his authentic teachings. If this were not the case — if it were true that Christ withdraws all grace and assistance to the members of non-Catholic Christian religions — then one would expect every one of them to be an absolute cesspool of falsehood and immorality. Instead it appears that when anyone strives to follow Christian moral teachings, those efforts bear good fruit. And if you think about it, why should they not?

If moral teachings are like treating your body and soul the way God intends them to operate, as suggested by C.S. Lewis, then it would seem that anyone who tried to obey them would reap the benefits of operating themselves in the proper manner. Just as performing the proper maintenance procedures on your car will result in a well-running car, even if you learn the procedures from a counterfeit copy of the maintenance manual.

By the same token, while some may argue that the Mormon Christ is not the genuine Christ, nevertheless Mormon teachings about Christ are not completely false. To the extent that they are true, why shouldn’t they enable people acting in good faith to know the genuine Christ? Someone who got basic facts wrong about me, might be hindered in knowing what makes me tick, and therefore misinterpret things that I say and do. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t know me at all.

Speaking frankly, none of this should be taken to mean that I find no harm in the Mormon religion. Like most other non-Catholic Christian religions (now I’m including the Mormons under the heading “Christian” in the broad sense explained in my other post), the more of them exist, and the more they contradict the authentic teachings of the Catholic faith, the more confusion and division they sow among Christians. Obviously it would be better if there were but one Christian faith. And the Mormon faith in particular, by its mere existence as well as its explicit teachings, takes direct aim at the Catholic Church and tries to undermine its claim to be the Church founded by Christ and existing continuously ever since its founding, with apostolic succession and a valid priesthood and sacraments. These are certainly grave evils from the Catholic perspective.

But the Catholic Church has taught that we cannot hold present-day members of Protestant sects to be as culpable as the original Reformers themselves: Having been Catholics they should have known better, whereas people born Protestant centuries later cannot be held to the same standard as an educated Catholic apostate of the 16th Century. I don’t know Joseph Smith’s motives in founding the Mormon religion. I can’t say for sure whether he was a conscious fraud or sincerely deluded (sorry, but to a believing Catholic those are the only options). But even assuming the worst motives on his part, one can’t hold present-day Mormons — not even their leaders — accountable for them. Charity requires us to put the best possible construction on the actions of others. Therefore it seems we’re bound to assume the sincerity and good faith of every Mormon from the Prophet on down, even while considering the Church’s inherently anti-Catholic claims to be objectively evil.

If, then, we assume the sincerity of Mormons, it is not beyond probability that many of them know the real Christ and are sincerely trying to live in accord with his teachings as they understand them. Therefore it should not surprise us to find the present-day Church and its members bearing various kinds of good fruit, and we should not be precluded from attributing those good fruits to their attempts to know and obey Christ — even if we are not obliged to conclude from their existence that the Church is what it claims to be. Both statements can be true: The good fruits can be attributed to Christ, notwithstanding that the Church’s claims about itself must, for a Catholic, be judged false.

More on NFP versus ABC

[Warning: This post contains what some might consider to be graphic descriptions of a sexual nature. I'm not being risque, it's just the nature of the subject.]

Previously I posted on whether Natural Family Planning (NFP) and artificial birth control (ABC) are morally the same; and whether NFP can logically be called “contraception”.  I’ve continued to ruminate on the subject and came up with the following.

1.  The argument that NFP is no better than ABC sometimes runs like this: The objective of both NFP and ABC is to have sex without conceiving children. Therefore they’re essentially the same thing. How can you allow one without allowing the other?

The unspoken major premise is that actions having the same objective are, essentially, morally the same. But isn’t that rather a shaky premise?

In fact, it follows the same reasoning as “the end justifies the means”, since the argument is basically: If the end of having sex without conceiving children is justified, then any and all means to achieve that end are equally justified. Thus if you allow NFP, you must also allow ABC. This line of argument seems clearly fallacious.

2.  Something I mentioned in the comments, but which I would like to highlight here as well:

NFP consists of abstaining from sex during fertile periods, and having sex during infertile periods. The part of NFP that people consider questionable, or similar to ABC, is not so much abstaining — which is obviously not birth control — but choosing specifically to have sex during infertile periods. In this, they say, people manifest the same attitude and intention as they would in using ABC.  But I think this is a matter of perspective.

Consider that before the discovery of NFP, married couples would have sex whenever. But if they wanted to avoid having additional children, they would have two choices: Either (1) abstain from sex entirely, or (2) use ABC. To a faithful Catholic, of course, number 2 was not an option, so there was only abstention.

NFP gave such persons an additional choice: Rather than abstaining from sex entirely, they could abstain only at certain times. They would still rely on abstinence to avoid conception, the same as before. Only they would have to abstain less often.

By no stretch can this be considered contraception, or anything like the same thing, essentially, as ABC. ABC relies not on abstinence, but on artificial physical barriers or chemicals designed to thwart bodily processes. These are precisely what have always been condemned by the Church from the time of the Fathers.

3.  Christian tradition is unanimous in condemning ABC, throughout Christian history. And I don’t mean merely suggesting that it might not be totally copacetic, I mean repeated, clear and resounding condemnations.

Those condemnations, however, don’t apply to NFP, since the existence of fertile and infertile cycles was not discovered and scientifically verified (and then not very accurately) until around the turn of the 20th Century. Rather, they refer to the use of such things as “evil appliances”, “poisons” or drugs, and the withdrawal method: Things which either block the natural result of intercourse, or else involve conducting it in an unnatural manner, i.e. by interrupting it.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes the following:

[5] It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.

Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Chapter 122

Here we have St. Thomas saying outright, that there is no sin in a man and wife having intercourse while the woman is sterile. Note that “by accident” doesn’t refer to an unintentional occurrence. He means rather that the woman being sterile is an accidental trait of hers, as opposed to an essential trait. It’s of the essence of a woman to be capable of reproducing, but the accidents of time and age can affect whether she is actually fertile in a given instance. There is nothing inherently unnatural or sinful in having intercourse with a woman when she happens to be infertile due to the natural processes of her body.

Pope Pius XI concurs when he writes,

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Pope Pius XI, Casti connubii (1930)