War has been raging against us, though we do not recognize it. We have been happily doing our daily business; our lives seem so normal and uneventful. But this war rages, mainly far away, and we think there is peace here.
Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit Court Judge George Greer gave Michael Shiavo permission to remove his disabled wife's feeding tube. The death is to start on March 18th, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. The wife, Terri Schindler-Schiavo, has a condition that does not meet the commonly-accepted standards for ending a patient's life, and so this extends the bounds of what the Pope calls "the Culture of Death".
Many Christians and others of good will are outraged by this, are realizing the great extent of this warfare, and no longer want to passively accept what is happening in the world. They are ready to declare war against this evil, recognizing that the opposition has already declared war against them; they also are ready to take up arms against the enemy, instead of just passively watching.
This is a war of good versus evil, of right and wrong. In this war we have two distinct enemies; the primary enemies who are hate-filled and seek only destruction, and the secondary enemies who are unwitting dupes or fools, and who do the work of the main enemy. In this war, we will not be satisfied until the primary enemies burn in Hell forever. The secondary enemies must be corrected and chastised, with utmost severity.
These enemies are not whom you might expect. The primary enemies are Satan and the evil spirits; ever since Lucifer the light-bearer, said "I will not serve", and became Satan the accuser, he has waged war against God and His creation. The secondary enemies are ourselves. Whom do we serve? Do we love the Lord Our God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our strength, and with all our spirit, and our neighbors as ourselves, or do we have residual favorite sins, which we keep as concubines of our hearts, thus serving evil?
But what of these activist judges, unfaithful husbands, and the strident supporters of the Culture of Death? Some may say that they are our enemies, those whom we oppose in this war. But can we blame them, ultimately? They perhaps never had a conversion, perhaps they never had faith, which is a gift. They live in our world and our culture, which has been teaching everyone about material progress, secularity, progressive politics, and never about the Laws of God. Modern ethics has taught Man to ignore the Law written on his heart, using endless nuance and utilitarian doctrines. Christianity is banned in many ways in our world. Our secular laws impose these ethics on us, and our public and even most Catholic schools accept these ethics as correct. This kind of thinking exists everywhere in our world, including our churches.
This is spiritual warfare. According to Saint Paul: "Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
But the Spiritual Warrior must have a level of perfection unknown in the world today. The weapons of the Spiritual Warrior are the Sacraments, prayer, and penance, but we must be well-disposed to use these weapons well. How hard it is to do it!
The ancient Desert Fathers fled the world and the destruction of society, to the wilderness, where they battled the demons and their own desires directly. They used extreme ascetisim to purify themselves for the fight. The monastic tradition uses community, obedience, and constant prayer in the battle; and it was the monks who saved civilization. The Medieval friars used poverty and preaching in the fight, and brought the flowering of Christendom. Warfare was taken to education and the arts in the Counter-Reformation. Up to our present day, lay associations have taken the fight from within the world, while not being of the world. Since our Modern culture has been called 'the synthesis of all heresies', our methods of warfare must meet it on all fronts, so we should strengthen all of these spiritual methods.
According to the Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, evil is real, is immortal, is obvious, and that too great a knowledge of evil is not good; and also that evil defeats itself, for evil can only mock, not create, and that evil seeks destruction, but cannot ultimately profit from it. Weakness is better than strength in the fight against evil, for evil's plans are ultimately defeated by itself. Dr. Kreeft says that weapons against evil are sacrifice, humility, friendship, and words. The example of the Holy Martyrs show how weakness and self-sacrifice overcome evil. Friendship avoids the perils of being divided and conquered. Humility is the opposition to pride, which is a first step to sin. Words, efficacious, sacramental, words are of great power against evil; Kreeft says that the phrases "I love you" and "I hate you" are not just words, but weapons. Evil, however, will ultimately defeat itself, and in the end will unwittingly work for the ultimate good.
No man is all good or all evil; we all are morally some shade of gray, but grayness implies the existence of both black and white. It is our duty to purify our fallen souls, otherwise we hurt our cause.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Radio Interview about Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Catholic physician and medical ethicist Robert Onder has a radio interview on radio station KWMU. The interview aired on February 23rd, 2004, and states the reasons against embryonic stem cell research. Another interviewee gives an opposing opinion in the second half of the interview.
Terri's War
Terri Schindler-Schiavo's husband, Michael, is seeking judgment from the State of Florida to have her feeding tube removed, which will cause her death by slow starvation and dehydration.
Terri is brain damaged, although not in a coma or vegetative state, and does not appear to be in pain or in a state of misery. Her parents are willing to support her, and large numbers of pro-life people are willing to donate money and time to also support her. Her husband wants her dead.
Many Christian and pro-life commentators out on the Web question whether some sort of action could be taken to save her life, even if the court orders Terri's death. A well-known Catholic doctrine says that an unjust law is not a law at all. Early Christians, under the domination of the Roman Empire, had to deal with unjust laws supporting slavery and the death sentence for those unwilling to sacrifice to the gods of the Empire. While patriotism is a moral requirement for Catholics, being a part of virtue of justice, and following the law is a part of that virtue, the Christian conscience is not bound by unjust laws.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (United States Council of Catholic Bishops):
"1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility"
"A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence." -- St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2.
"1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
It appears that Terri has a natural right to live, and that any court ruling to the contrary is unjust and therefore void, at least according to Catholic morality, and to the Natural Law philosophical basis of our Constitution. Also, the Holy See has declared that hydration and food are a basic right and must not be withheld, so any court order for removing her feeding tube would be considered unjust by the Church, and not morally binding on the Christian faithful.
But while a law is unjust, direct opposition to that law may be discouraged for pastoral reasons. For example, the Church has always opposed slavery -- a Papal encyclical on the subject came out even before the discovery of America -- but the Church did not take a firm stand on the subject in the United States. This was for pastoral reasons: Catholics were a small, persecuted, and hated minority in the country and also some Catholics supported slavery, or more precisely, feared what would happen after the slaves were freed. Would the Church be willing to start a civil war over that issue, where its members would most certainly be slaughtered? I assume that this is why most American bishops don't have a strong stand against abortion, since it is a fight that the Church would lose, at least in the short run. Many bishops have been warned by political powers: play ball or we will destroy you.
Terri's local Ordinary, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, made this following statement on October 12th, 2003:
"....If Terri’s feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.
"This situation is tragic. I strongly recommend that
"1. in the presence of so much uncertainty and dispute about her actual physical state, all parties pursue a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition;
"2. Terri’s family be allowed to attempt a medical protocol which they feel would improve her condition;
"3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know."
I was unable to find a newer statement by the Bishop on his web site. The full text may be found at the Diocese of Saint Petersburg in Florida. I would think that Catholics are bound by this statement by the local Ordinary of Terri's diocese . The Bishop's recommendations are acceptable, in my opinion.
In the case where Terri's death by starvation and dehydration is ordered by a court, then the Bishop's recommendations would no longer be applicable, since he did not state what a Catholic's duties should be; in that case, one could go back to the old Catholic moral teaching that "an unjust law is not a law at all". Along with sins of commission are also sins of omission. Perhaps Terri's parents, along with well-wishers, could go to Terri's hospice, and inform the staff, very politely and with humility, that they will be taking Terri out of that place. And then do so.
I grew up in the 1960s, where political activists violated the law for reasons of justice. These activists made an excellent case for their action, and now some of those activists are in positions of power in our government. These activists were, in many cases, right; society did not want to change, but knew that it must, and it did. I think that Terri's supporters have the same or greater moral imperative to act in this case. I would think that peaceful action to remove Terri from the hospice to give her loving care is completely justified and moral, and certainly falls within the virtue of charity. Even if force is used to oppose them, a proportional response would still be moral, although it may not be pastoral.
What the Pope calls the "Culture of Death" has gone too far with Terri, and the American Civil Liberties Union is making a mistake supporting Terri's death in this case; the ACLU will be perceived even more as an organization that supports atrocity. This is an innocent woman, who is not dying, nor apparently in great pain and suffering, who may die because one man wants her dead. I am amazed at how the Culture of Death innovates: death was, until recently, given to those who are unwanted, such as a child in an unwanted pregnancy, but now, a woman, wanted by her parents, still must die! I didn't think that this would be possible until recently. It is as I suspected, two decades ago, that the right to die would eventually become the duty to die: this is a big step in that direction.
Those who wish to expand the boundaries of legal death have had tepid opposition until now, since we all just want to get along and not be bothered. However, Terri's case has energized the pro-life community, who are sick of the continual expansion of legalized death. The new attitude is: "A line has been drawn. The Culture of Death shall go no further."
Terri is brain damaged, although not in a coma or vegetative state, and does not appear to be in pain or in a state of misery. Her parents are willing to support her, and large numbers of pro-life people are willing to donate money and time to also support her. Her husband wants her dead.
Many Christian and pro-life commentators out on the Web question whether some sort of action could be taken to save her life, even if the court orders Terri's death. A well-known Catholic doctrine says that an unjust law is not a law at all. Early Christians, under the domination of the Roman Empire, had to deal with unjust laws supporting slavery and the death sentence for those unwilling to sacrifice to the gods of the Empire. While patriotism is a moral requirement for Catholics, being a part of virtue of justice, and following the law is a part of that virtue, the Christian conscience is not bound by unjust laws.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (United States Council of Catholic Bishops):
"1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility"
"A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence." -- St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2.
"1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
It appears that Terri has a natural right to live, and that any court ruling to the contrary is unjust and therefore void, at least according to Catholic morality, and to the Natural Law philosophical basis of our Constitution. Also, the Holy See has declared that hydration and food are a basic right and must not be withheld, so any court order for removing her feeding tube would be considered unjust by the Church, and not morally binding on the Christian faithful.
But while a law is unjust, direct opposition to that law may be discouraged for pastoral reasons. For example, the Church has always opposed slavery -- a Papal encyclical on the subject came out even before the discovery of America -- but the Church did not take a firm stand on the subject in the United States. This was for pastoral reasons: Catholics were a small, persecuted, and hated minority in the country and also some Catholics supported slavery, or more precisely, feared what would happen after the slaves were freed. Would the Church be willing to start a civil war over that issue, where its members would most certainly be slaughtered? I assume that this is why most American bishops don't have a strong stand against abortion, since it is a fight that the Church would lose, at least in the short run. Many bishops have been warned by political powers: play ball or we will destroy you.
Terri's local Ordinary, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, made this following statement on October 12th, 2003:
"....If Terri’s feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.
"This situation is tragic. I strongly recommend that
"1. in the presence of so much uncertainty and dispute about her actual physical state, all parties pursue a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition;
"2. Terri’s family be allowed to attempt a medical protocol which they feel would improve her condition;
"3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know."
I was unable to find a newer statement by the Bishop on his web site. The full text may be found at the Diocese of Saint Petersburg in Florida. I would think that Catholics are bound by this statement by the local Ordinary of Terri's diocese . The Bishop's recommendations are acceptable, in my opinion.
In the case where Terri's death by starvation and dehydration is ordered by a court, then the Bishop's recommendations would no longer be applicable, since he did not state what a Catholic's duties should be; in that case, one could go back to the old Catholic moral teaching that "an unjust law is not a law at all". Along with sins of commission are also sins of omission. Perhaps Terri's parents, along with well-wishers, could go to Terri's hospice, and inform the staff, very politely and with humility, that they will be taking Terri out of that place. And then do so.
I grew up in the 1960s, where political activists violated the law for reasons of justice. These activists made an excellent case for their action, and now some of those activists are in positions of power in our government. These activists were, in many cases, right; society did not want to change, but knew that it must, and it did. I think that Terri's supporters have the same or greater moral imperative to act in this case. I would think that peaceful action to remove Terri from the hospice to give her loving care is completely justified and moral, and certainly falls within the virtue of charity. Even if force is used to oppose them, a proportional response would still be moral, although it may not be pastoral.
What the Pope calls the "Culture of Death" has gone too far with Terri, and the American Civil Liberties Union is making a mistake supporting Terri's death in this case; the ACLU will be perceived even more as an organization that supports atrocity. This is an innocent woman, who is not dying, nor apparently in great pain and suffering, who may die because one man wants her dead. I am amazed at how the Culture of Death innovates: death was, until recently, given to those who are unwanted, such as a child in an unwanted pregnancy, but now, a woman, wanted by her parents, still must die! I didn't think that this would be possible until recently. It is as I suspected, two decades ago, that the right to die would eventually become the duty to die: this is a big step in that direction.
Those who wish to expand the boundaries of legal death have had tepid opposition until now, since we all just want to get along and not be bothered. However, Terri's case has energized the pro-life community, who are sick of the continual expansion of legalized death. The new attitude is: "A line has been drawn. The Culture of Death shall go no further."
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Population Falling, Faith Rising
Hong Kong has a population decline. The territory, now controlled by the Communist mainland, is promoting a new policy: HK promotes 'three child policy'. This is in contrast to China proper, which has a draconian one-child policy.
It is something of a secret that Christianity is florishing in China, that China has more practicing Christians than most countries, and may become majority Christian in only a few decades. Guangdong province, the region north of Hong Kong is a center of Catholicism which, due to geography and culture, was left relatively alone during the Modernist atrocities of the Red Guards Communist reign. In China you see priests older than 70 and younger than 30, kind of like the U.S., and for the same reason, cultural revolution. The Church in China is officially cut from the Vatican, but prayers for the Pope are offered at Mass and informal contacts with the outside world and travel are allowed.
The Patriotic Catholic Association is the state-run controller of official Catholicism in China, but apparently many members are also loyal to Rome. There is an underground Church too, which has millions of members. Pope John Paul II is attempting closer ties with the government in exchange for greater religious liberty.
A Christian China would not need a harsh birth control policy, for morality would take precedence over force.
It is something of a secret that Christianity is florishing in China, that China has more practicing Christians than most countries, and may become majority Christian in only a few decades. Guangdong province, the region north of Hong Kong is a center of Catholicism which, due to geography and culture, was left relatively alone during the Modernist atrocities of the Red Guards Communist reign. In China you see priests older than 70 and younger than 30, kind of like the U.S., and for the same reason, cultural revolution. The Church in China is officially cut from the Vatican, but prayers for the Pope are offered at Mass and informal contacts with the outside world and travel are allowed.
The Patriotic Catholic Association is the state-run controller of official Catholicism in China, but apparently many members are also loyal to Rome. There is an underground Church too, which has millions of members. Pope John Paul II is attempting closer ties with the government in exchange for greater religious liberty.
A Christian China would not need a harsh birth control policy, for morality would take precedence over force.
No Pain, No Gain
No pain, no gain.
Feel the burn, baby.
I hit the wall, and kept on going.
You've got to work your way through the pain.
What doesn't kill me, only makes me stronger!
The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle.
If you are serious about athletics, the above proverbs are very familiar. We Americans wouldn't blink at hearing a coach say something about working through pain to achieve a greater goal. But the same kind of attitude used to be used in spirituality.
Nowadays, if you mention corporeal mortification as a necessary component of the spiritual life, you would be considered insane, or stuck in the middle ages.
In athletics, what does this mortification gain you? Winning a contest, perhaps? Money? Becoming more attractive so that you can have better-looking lovers? Self-gratification?
In spirituality, this is what mortification gains: Denial of self. The spirit of poverty. Solidarity with the poor and sick. Possibility of Heaven.
I would think that mortification of the flesh has better application in the spiritual life.
Our current American society is well-illustrated by contrasts. We have the most successful athletic programs in the world, and we have the highest incidence of obesity. While it may seem that these show contrasting attitudes within society, I would think that they show the same attitude, expressed in different modes. The Athlete and the Obese both desire self-gratification; they act for their own carnal pleasure.
We Americans like a comfortable religion, one that doesn't require much of us, other than an occasional visit to the local Worship Facility. Those who demand that religion must be challenging, end up just challenging religion itself, quoting from the 'Gospel of Thomas' and worshiping the 'feminine divine' (not that they actually do that particular worship themselves). We don't want a religion that asks us to make sacrifices, unless that just means supporting some ballot proposition that will increase our sales tax by 1/4 of 1 percent.
Catholicism, at one time, used to make strong demands for sacrifice, which mirrors the sacrifice which is re-presented in the Mass. These demands, with charity, will return, have no doubt.
Some corporeal mortifications seem quite bizarre to the modern American. The world charges that some of these practices are a form of sadomasochism: but, if pleasure is received from mortification, then it is a grave sin, and should be stopped immediately, and council with a good spiritual advisor is needed. Americans don't understand this! However, the most basic self-sacrifice, which nearly everyone is able to fulfill, is fasting. No one would consider fasting a form of masochism (although some may consider it a form of political protest). And since so many Americans are obese, perhaps this is a sacrifice that could be very widely practiced. What easier, yet noble, sacrifice could we do for Lent than have only one full meal a day? When we do not eat, we would feel compassion for the very poor, who have nothing to eat. When we do actually eat our meal for the day, we would be thankful to God for giving us that meal. We are to see Christ in the poor, and are to give thanks to God for our gifts: I would then think that fasting is an excellent spiritual practice.
It is commonplace for an American to consider the pain of athletics acceptable. Why not suffering with Christ, who suffered for us?
Feel the burn, baby.
I hit the wall, and kept on going.
You've got to work your way through the pain.
What doesn't kill me, only makes me stronger!
The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle.
If you are serious about athletics, the above proverbs are very familiar. We Americans wouldn't blink at hearing a coach say something about working through pain to achieve a greater goal. But the same kind of attitude used to be used in spirituality.
Nowadays, if you mention corporeal mortification as a necessary component of the spiritual life, you would be considered insane, or stuck in the middle ages.
In athletics, what does this mortification gain you? Winning a contest, perhaps? Money? Becoming more attractive so that you can have better-looking lovers? Self-gratification?
In spirituality, this is what mortification gains: Denial of self. The spirit of poverty. Solidarity with the poor and sick. Possibility of Heaven.
I would think that mortification of the flesh has better application in the spiritual life.
Our current American society is well-illustrated by contrasts. We have the most successful athletic programs in the world, and we have the highest incidence of obesity. While it may seem that these show contrasting attitudes within society, I would think that they show the same attitude, expressed in different modes. The Athlete and the Obese both desire self-gratification; they act for their own carnal pleasure.
We Americans like a comfortable religion, one that doesn't require much of us, other than an occasional visit to the local Worship Facility. Those who demand that religion must be challenging, end up just challenging religion itself, quoting from the 'Gospel of Thomas' and worshiping the 'feminine divine' (not that they actually do that particular worship themselves). We don't want a religion that asks us to make sacrifices, unless that just means supporting some ballot proposition that will increase our sales tax by 1/4 of 1 percent.
Catholicism, at one time, used to make strong demands for sacrifice, which mirrors the sacrifice which is re-presented in the Mass. These demands, with charity, will return, have no doubt.
Some corporeal mortifications seem quite bizarre to the modern American. The world charges that some of these practices are a form of sadomasochism: but, if pleasure is received from mortification, then it is a grave sin, and should be stopped immediately, and council with a good spiritual advisor is needed. Americans don't understand this! However, the most basic self-sacrifice, which nearly everyone is able to fulfill, is fasting. No one would consider fasting a form of masochism (although some may consider it a form of political protest). And since so many Americans are obese, perhaps this is a sacrifice that could be very widely practiced. What easier, yet noble, sacrifice could we do for Lent than have only one full meal a day? When we do not eat, we would feel compassion for the very poor, who have nothing to eat. When we do actually eat our meal for the day, we would be thankful to God for giving us that meal. We are to see Christ in the poor, and are to give thanks to God for our gifts: I would then think that fasting is an excellent spiritual practice.
It is commonplace for an American to consider the pain of athletics acceptable. Why not suffering with Christ, who suffered for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
