Almighty Lord, God of the Powers and of all flesh, Who livest in the
highest and carest for the humble, Who searchest our hearts and
affections, and clearly foreknowest the secrets of men; eternal and
everliving Light, in Whom is no change nor shadow of variation; O
Immortal King, receive our prayers which at the present time we offer to
Thee from unclean lips, trusting in the multitude of Thy mercies.
Forgive all sins committed by us in thought, word or deed, consciously
or unconsciously, and cleanse us from all defilement of flesh and
spirit. Grant us to pass the night of the whole present life with
wakeful heart and sober thought, ever expecting the coming of the
radiant day of the appearing of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord and God
and Saviour, Jesus Christ, when the Judge of all will come with glory to
render to each according to their deeds. May we not be found fallen and
idle, but awake and alert for action, ready to accompany Him into the
joy and divine palace of His glory, where there is the ceaseless sound
of those keeping festival and the unspeakable delight of those who
behold the ineffable beauty of Thy Face. For Thou art the true Light
that enlightens and sanctifies all, and all creation sings to Thee
throughout the ages. Amen.
8.14.2015
7.02.2013
On the Second Vatican Council II
Continuing my series, I have begun a close reading of the documents of Vatican II. Since the objections to the Council stem from a few of the sixteen decrees, I shall probably focus upon those most of all: e.g. Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, and Unitatis Redintegratio. But first, I shall lay out the structure of the Council and examine as a whole the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII. Then I shall examine each Council text in the order of composition. When I reach a controversial declaration, I shall also examine pre-conciliar pronouncements to clarify the interpretation of the Council; so, for example, Pius XII's Mystici Corporis in conjunction with Lumen Gentium, Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, etc. with Dignitatis Humanae, and so forth.
The Second Vatican Council composed and promulgated sixteen documents over a period of four years, 1962 through 1965. They range from a constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to a decree on religious liberty (probably the most controversial of all the Church's pronouncements). In order of composition, they are:
Session II: 1963The Second Vatican Council composed and promulgated sixteen documents over a period of four years, 1962 through 1965. They range from a constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to a decree on religious liberty (probably the most controversial of all the Church's pronouncements). In order of composition, they are:
Session I: 1962
- Opening Address of Pope John XXIII
- Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on Sacred Liturgy)
- Inter Mirifica (Decree on the Media of Social Communications)
- Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)
- Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites)
- Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)
- Christus Dominus (Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops)
- Perfectae Caritatis (Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life)
- Optatum Totius (Decree on Priestly Training)
- Gravissimum Educationis (Declaration on Christian Education)
- Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation to non-Christian religions)
- Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
- Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity)
- Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom)
- Ad Gentes Divinus (Decree on Mission Activity of the Church)
- Presbyterorum Ordinis (Decree on the Ministry of Priests)
- Gaudiam et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
Vatican II thus presupposes the Faith. It will not alter or change it, but will re-present it that the Gospel might be preached more effectively; that all men might recognize their duty of ceaselessly tending toward the attainment of heavenly things. This means all the harsh-sounding encyclicals, all the fierce anathemas - all these will be presupposed within the texts of the Council, and these must be our guide in interpreting it.
I wrote last time about the staggering naivete (I cannot call it anything else) the the Pope put forth, and there is no reason to harp on it. The Enemy has been hard at work among men, especially in the West, for the past fifty years, and the fruits are available for all to see. But in the midst of this unbelievable wishful thinking, a peculiar prescient section produced itself: "She consider that She meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of Her teaching rather than by condemnations." Now if all the states of the world were confessional and the temporal reign of the Pope were a fait accompli, Holy Mother Church would and should use condemnations to confute error. But our era is one of faithlessness; immaterial reality has, as a certain German put it, ceased to be meaningful for us. It is thus clear that condemnations require, on the part of the faithful, adequate formation in faith. Everybody knows that the Church forbids divorce. But Her authority is no longer, as it once was, sufficient to keep the purity of the Faith intact. It must be known, its truth must be demonstrated, proposed. The Second Vatican Council, then, is the first post-Christian Council. No longer can the Mystical Body rely upon the secular arm to enforce the truth; it must be appropriated and imbibed in its life-giving purity by all men without exception. John XXIII is thus calling all the faithful to become saints.
The Catholic Church desires to show Herself to be the loving Mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from Her. The Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does She promise them merely earthly happiness. But She distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of Her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through Her children, She spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.
These are beautiful, inspiring words. The effusive naivete regarding the awfulness of humanity is still worrisome (and I'll probably encounter it again in the decrees), but the aim and purpose of the Council is finally clear. Next stop, Sacrosanctum Concilium.
2.15.2013
On the Second Vatican Council I
I have decided to try and exorcize a particular demon. I have been plagued, haunted, and tormented by a persisting thought: is the Church, after the Council, a different Church than that which preceded it? Have doctrines changed? Do the new teachings of the Church contradict earlier ones?
This is a serious question for any Catholic, particularly as the mass apostasy continues: if the polls be accurate, 70% of those 'identifying as Catholics' no longer believe in the Real Presence. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass admits of grave liturgical abuses, and ignorance is widespread; to say nothing of the prevalent sexual nihilism. No one can help me answer these questions, at least not yet. I must deal with them, in their beginnings at least, on my own.
And there is much to do. I first need to absorb the Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the aims and purpose of the Council. Then I need to read, and read carefully, the sixteen documents thereof; next, to meet the objection of those (I'm looking at you, SSPX) who claim it contradicts, in numerous important subjects, previously-taught traditions; finally, discuss the revisions to the liturgy and the rites (and where I disagree with the SSPX harshly, borderline uncharitably in their contention that Vatican II explicitly contradicts older tradition, I am in almost full agreement with what they write on the beauty of the old rites and the impoverishment of the new).
To begin, here is a portion of the Opening Address:
We see, in fact, as one age succeeds
another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other.
And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun
The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned
them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers
to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers
that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity
of her teaching rather than by condemnations Not, certainly, that there is
a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded
against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right
norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would
seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those
ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence
in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts
of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of
the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that
implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted
on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at
all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them.
This seems radically imprudent. After Roe v. Wade and fifty-five million murdered children later, it does not seem at all the case that to "men of themselves," "violence inflicted upon others" is of no help in solving apparent troubles. And the abundance of fallacious teaching, opinion, and dangerous doctrine, far from being recognized as such by the world, is by it wholeheartedly embraced; and that fountain of truth, Holy Mother Church, is instead hated and reviled. I am not exactly comfortable calling the Holy Father (now raised to the Altar of Saints, in fact) naive, but I do not know how else to say it. The world hates the Church, for She proclaims the truth, the light - which men hate because their deeds are evil. This I have seen in my own life, in private conversation, and in my experience of the world, especially public opinion. The world and the Church are irreconcilable enemies, and have always been so, if we take Christ's Gospel speeches (especially in John) seriously.
I could write pages upon this quotation, because in deliniating the ways of life men "of themselves" are inclined to condemn, His Holiness has almost perfectly described the animus of the modern world. Act with consent, and live as you please; our new religion is Science (Comte would be proud), our confidence is in its technical progress, and our well-being is based exclusively on the comforts of life (thus the reviling of the Church, which apparently wastes money on gold monstrances instead of giving it to the poor, and our hatred of the rich; in reality an ill-disguised grasping, clawing, greed and envy). Was it really so different in 1965? I find such a supposition baffling, but then if things were not so different, this sentiment seems fluffy nothings, and I have little more hopeful prospects for the documents themselves, if they, as this opening address appears to do, so radically miss the modern soul and fail to criticize it properly.
I could write pages upon this quotation, because in deliniating the ways of life men "of themselves" are inclined to condemn, His Holiness has almost perfectly described the animus of the modern world. Act with consent, and live as you please; our new religion is Science (Comte would be proud), our confidence is in its technical progress, and our well-being is based exclusively on the comforts of life (thus the reviling of the Church, which apparently wastes money on gold monstrances instead of giving it to the poor, and our hatred of the rich; in reality an ill-disguised grasping, clawing, greed and envy). Was it really so different in 1965? I find such a supposition baffling, but then if things were not so different, this sentiment seems fluffy nothings, and I have little more hopeful prospects for the documents themselves, if they, as this opening address appears to do, so radically miss the modern soul and fail to criticize it properly.
This is not a happy way to begin my study of the Council.
8.14.2012
On the Cardinal Complaints and Possible Schism
The Church has always existed in tension with the city. From the beginning She has always been different from the surrounding milieu in which She finds Herself. This reliance and handing down of the traditions She has received from the Fathers - orthodoxy - has always had its detractors, but rarely so loud, angry, and hysteric as in this current era. The Church is bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and other, less pleasant epithets, to read the relevant popular literature. Her morality is patriarchal, antiquated, and anachronistic; the product of sexist, classist, and homophobic old men. For She refuses to ordain women and proscribes abortion, fornication, contraception, masturbation, pornography, divorce, homosexual acts, and even (with few exceptions) married clergy. These proscriptions trouble even otherwise faithful Catholics, who have trouble reconciling the pure love they see in the Gospels with condemnations of homosexual union or contraception (the proscription fornication is usually ignored). Indeed, if recent surveys are to be believed, the majority of Catholic women practice artificial contraception. The popular attitude is that the Catholic laity have 'voted with their feet' and choose to follow a gentler, more relevant morality; the morality promulgated by the current era. So deep-seated is this trend that some think (hope or fear, depending on the thinker) that there will shortly be a major schism within the Catholic Church regarding these moral contraverses; that there will arise a new, competing Church which endorses all these issues which the Catholic Church condemns; which Church, it is claimed, shall mirror Christ better than Rome.
The moral disputes arise from a difference of first principles. The Church's principles are twofold, promulgated by Our Lord: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and might; and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Modernity's Commandments are also twofold, but of rather different character: "Act consensually," and "Live as you please." Herein lies the problem; for all Her disputed teachings concern sexuality, the most (at least it ought to be) private and sacred aspect of human life. Since sexual acts are (to use the language of the Church) intended to be acts of love, or are intended (to use the language of modernity) to be consensual, how could these acts harm, if they are knowingly and prudently chosen? Surely they are not really a big deal, and thus it is absolutely wrong to proscribe something which seems harmless. Masturbation? It's fun, easy, and no one gets hurt. Casual, uninhibited sexuality? The same. And so on. As college students recently put it, "It's no big deal". And this is the root cause of the dispute: the modern age holds that the above acts are of insufficient important to warrant proscription, and the Church holds precisely the opposite view. But this view betrays, on occasion, the quieter, underlying belief that there is nothing good simply. Ask a reasonably intelligent, educated modern man, "what is the good life?" and it is likely the answer will have something, if not everything, to do with whatever pleases you and makes you happy. Anything more specific might devalue someone's perfectly viable alternative lifestyle. And if there is no good life simply, but we say rather one must live as one pleases, the conclusion of nihilism (i.e. belief in nothing), seems irresistible. We are unwitting nihilists; albeit soft, gentle nihilists. This spirit 'animates' the modern dispute with the Church, and even Her own children have fallen greatly under its influence.
Insufficient space prevents (for the moment) the development of true understanding regarding the Church's moral teachings. For the present, let us consider what might happen if a schism actually resulted. It seems that the prevalent, negating spirit would cause the schism, but would it halt there? Almost certainly not, for the Church's intolerance is not limited to sexuality; rather, Her intolerance is rooted in the essence of what She is. For She proclaims that through Christ alone may men find redemption and the path to God; all other manmade attempts will end in failure; all rebellious attempts will end in damnation, being abandoned by God to one's own devices. This spirit of exclusivity is the source of Her forbidding all which modernity would like Her to endorse, and this spirit comes from submission to Her Bridegroom in all things. If then a schism, apparently on the grounds of sexual morals, were to arise, very soon the intolerant doctrine that God may be reached only through Christ must be addressed. It takes little imagination to discern the probability of the answer in the negative, and such answer, to modernity's eyes, would be a great gain, for if 'God' may be reached through multiple means, than no one mean is better than another, and thus religious wars and violence (the greatest plague ever to beset mankind) would cease altogether. It is only those who are convinced their way is the True Way who kill others in the name of God. So say the moderns.
Very well then. We have a gentler, apparently purer church, who welcomes all men of all creeds, of all conditions, experiences, and walks of life - asking all of these without exception to try and show the love of God to everyone - in sum, to be kind to others, and not judge or condemn the actions of anyone. Surely it mirrors the pure love of Jesus better than Rome. How could it not?
To be sure, these sentiments - welcoming all men, exhorting them to the love of God and neighbor, etc.- are admirable. Further, in their proper place they reflect the orthodox teaching of the Fathers. But if the above is all the Church may do; if there is nothing beyond this, than the Christian faith has been nullified, and the Bride has betrayed her Bridegroom. Taken to the extreme, these sentiments are the lies of the Devil. For we know through divine revelation and ordinary experience that man's condition is sin, and to reach the enlightenment of salvation he must needs have recourse to God; and God has sent His Son - Our Lord - to redeem men from their own wicked folly, and to set them on the path towards true righteousness. If this submission to divine revelation, which animates the Church in Her restrictions regarding human sexuality, be denied, than all that is left of Her teaching is: be nice to people. And what need is there of a church who preaches merely and only that? It does not require divine revelation to realize one ought not to do evil, for every great thinker, even most remotely thoughtful people have arrived at this conclusion without needing it revealed. Even our modern era recognizes it, in the midst of its hostile reaction to the Church. Rather, such a church is superfluous in the eyes of reason and may easily be discarded after short reflection.
Thus, a moral schism, though stemming from apparently noble sources, has its roots in a spirit absolutely contradicting the central claims of the faith. Given free rein, I have little doubt that it would shortly abandon those central teachings, for its embracing of modernity is a quiet, subtle rejection of an all-important teaching: the teaching that the Church, with respect to some of men's affairs, has revealed the truth of things to men. Whether the issue be sexual controverses or the Resurrection, this issue of revelation is the heart of the disputes, and nothing less than the possibility of divine revelation is at stake whenever such disputes are raised.
The moral disputes arise from a difference of first principles. The Church's principles are twofold, promulgated by Our Lord: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and might; and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Modernity's Commandments are also twofold, but of rather different character: "Act consensually," and "Live as you please." Herein lies the problem; for all Her disputed teachings concern sexuality, the most (at least it ought to be) private and sacred aspect of human life. Since sexual acts are (to use the language of the Church) intended to be acts of love, or are intended (to use the language of modernity) to be consensual, how could these acts harm, if they are knowingly and prudently chosen? Surely they are not really a big deal, and thus it is absolutely wrong to proscribe something which seems harmless. Masturbation? It's fun, easy, and no one gets hurt. Casual, uninhibited sexuality? The same. And so on. As college students recently put it, "It's no big deal". And this is the root cause of the dispute: the modern age holds that the above acts are of insufficient important to warrant proscription, and the Church holds precisely the opposite view. But this view betrays, on occasion, the quieter, underlying belief that there is nothing good simply. Ask a reasonably intelligent, educated modern man, "what is the good life?" and it is likely the answer will have something, if not everything, to do with whatever pleases you and makes you happy. Anything more specific might devalue someone's perfectly viable alternative lifestyle. And if there is no good life simply, but we say rather one must live as one pleases, the conclusion of nihilism (i.e. belief in nothing), seems irresistible. We are unwitting nihilists; albeit soft, gentle nihilists. This spirit 'animates' the modern dispute with the Church, and even Her own children have fallen greatly under its influence.
Insufficient space prevents (for the moment) the development of true understanding regarding the Church's moral teachings. For the present, let us consider what might happen if a schism actually resulted. It seems that the prevalent, negating spirit would cause the schism, but would it halt there? Almost certainly not, for the Church's intolerance is not limited to sexuality; rather, Her intolerance is rooted in the essence of what She is. For She proclaims that through Christ alone may men find redemption and the path to God; all other manmade attempts will end in failure; all rebellious attempts will end in damnation, being abandoned by God to one's own devices. This spirit of exclusivity is the source of Her forbidding all which modernity would like Her to endorse, and this spirit comes from submission to Her Bridegroom in all things. If then a schism, apparently on the grounds of sexual morals, were to arise, very soon the intolerant doctrine that God may be reached only through Christ must be addressed. It takes little imagination to discern the probability of the answer in the negative, and such answer, to modernity's eyes, would be a great gain, for if 'God' may be reached through multiple means, than no one mean is better than another, and thus religious wars and violence (the greatest plague ever to beset mankind) would cease altogether. It is only those who are convinced their way is the True Way who kill others in the name of God. So say the moderns.
Very well then. We have a gentler, apparently purer church, who welcomes all men of all creeds, of all conditions, experiences, and walks of life - asking all of these without exception to try and show the love of God to everyone - in sum, to be kind to others, and not judge or condemn the actions of anyone. Surely it mirrors the pure love of Jesus better than Rome. How could it not?
To be sure, these sentiments - welcoming all men, exhorting them to the love of God and neighbor, etc.- are admirable. Further, in their proper place they reflect the orthodox teaching of the Fathers. But if the above is all the Church may do; if there is nothing beyond this, than the Christian faith has been nullified, and the Bride has betrayed her Bridegroom. Taken to the extreme, these sentiments are the lies of the Devil. For we know through divine revelation and ordinary experience that man's condition is sin, and to reach the enlightenment of salvation he must needs have recourse to God; and God has sent His Son - Our Lord - to redeem men from their own wicked folly, and to set them on the path towards true righteousness. If this submission to divine revelation, which animates the Church in Her restrictions regarding human sexuality, be denied, than all that is left of Her teaching is: be nice to people. And what need is there of a church who preaches merely and only that? It does not require divine revelation to realize one ought not to do evil, for every great thinker, even most remotely thoughtful people have arrived at this conclusion without needing it revealed. Even our modern era recognizes it, in the midst of its hostile reaction to the Church. Rather, such a church is superfluous in the eyes of reason and may easily be discarded after short reflection.
Thus, a moral schism, though stemming from apparently noble sources, has its roots in a spirit absolutely contradicting the central claims of the faith. Given free rein, I have little doubt that it would shortly abandon those central teachings, for its embracing of modernity is a quiet, subtle rejection of an all-important teaching: the teaching that the Church, with respect to some of men's affairs, has revealed the truth of things to men. Whether the issue be sexual controverses or the Resurrection, this issue of revelation is the heart of the disputes, and nothing less than the possibility of divine revelation is at stake whenever such disputes are raised.
7.31.2012
On the Anti-Abortion Case
Full disclosure: my belief in divine revelation has waned and waxed over the years and my opinions concerning the city have oscillated wildly, but I have always hated abortion, just as I have always hated premeditated murder, rape, and other base, shameful acts. This opposition to what I have always seen as a grave crime is unlikely to change. This brief essay is thus an attempt to outline what I hope is the best of the anti-abortion case (I name it anti-abortion, for this is less ambiguous than 'pro-life', just as 'pro-abortion' is less ambiguous than 'pro-choice'.
First, some questions. What is abortion? Ought it to be permitted? How ought we to evaluate this problem, and what sources of knowledge ought we to use in our evaluation?
Abortion is the removal and destruction of a woman's fetus. This practice is currently legal in all the states of the Union, and in most countries of the world. Approximately fifty million fetuses have been aborted in the United States since it was widely adopted and endorsed some years ago; if we include the 'morning after' pill the worldwide total rises to more than one billion. The stakes are higher than any other moral dispute, and both sides fight with religious zeal. The anti-abortion argument in sum states that a fetus is in fact a human being, a person; thus abortion is murder and therefore it ought to be universally prohibited. Others deny this is the case, and the dispute has the irritating quality of tending to spin in circles.
What modes of knowledge should we use in approaching this dispute? One thing seems clear; the empirical sciences are of no use here; first because science has nothing to do with knowledge (in the strictest sense of the word, that is), and second, science has no concern at all with moral disputes, of which abortion is now the exemplar. Thus, scientific contributions are of little help in determining whether abortion ought or ought not to be prohibited. We must use immediate, non-scientific observations, taken from ordinary experience; and these, when coupled with sufficient reflection, shall be enough to cast some doubt on the pro-abortion case, and shed light on the anti-abortion case. One such coupling of reason and ordinary experience, providing a compelling case in favor of abortion is as follows: it is acceptable to kill a living part of yourself (cancerous growth, amputation, etc.), but not another person. A fetus is a living part of its mother, not a separate other. Giving birth is the act of separating with that part, so that it becomes an other. A newborn outside the womb is obviously an other, not a part of the mother. Therefore, it is acceptable to kill an unborn fetus, but this permissibility halts at birth.
This argument is the most convincing I have heard and am likely to hear. Of these four premises, I agree fully with the first and fourth, agree with the third in a qualified way (the result of birth is absolutely an other), but have some questions about the second. How do we know that a fetus is a part of the mother and not an other? To be sure, if the pregnancy is normal, we do not see, hear, or directly perceive the fetus at all. We might conclude, therefore, that was was there before birth was no person at all. Or we could conclude that it was a person all along, even though we could not directly perceive it. But an objection could be raised here; could we not say the same of human eggs and sperm? Might this argument make them also persons? It does not, for we could collect a man's sperm and observe it indefinitely, and it would never be anything else. We could store a woman's monthly blood and observe the same result - nothing. They remain only elements and cannot of their own accord be anything more. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that sperm and egg, considered alone, are not persons.
But what of their union? Though the resulting fetus is intimately bound to its mother, deriving all protection and nourishment from her, it develops through its own nature through various stages till birth. And why is birth so important? Because birth is when the child comes into the world, the moment when it is seen, felt, and heard. Thus we immediately perceive it is an other. But all these changes are changes in ourselves, not changes in the newborn. We perceive it, we see it, we hear it - how have our perceptions wrought any such important changes in the nature of the perceived? How could they?
It seems clear that a newborn is a human being, and it is as obviously unacceptable to kill it. It is becoming increasingly doubtful that any great change occurred moments before the child entered the birth canal. For if the newborn is obviously human, what of the newborn that is almost out of the womb, with perhaps just the feet inside? Is it still a 'part', not yet an 'other'? If it is now an other, what of when its head clears the womb? Just before? It seems that our initial inclination to judge a fetus as only a part of the mother and not yet an other has some serious difficulties; that if we recognize a newborn as a person, we ought to so recognize a fetus shortly before birth. We are back at the fundamental question: when does a fetus become a human being? After birth? During birth? Just before? When it becomes 'viable' (i.e., capable of living outside the womb)? When with sophisticated instruments we can discern brain waves? When its heart begins to beat? At conception?
If we are to rely on observations derived solely from ordinary experience (and I think we should, though the scientific 'evidence', as it gets more sophisticated, tends to favor the anti-abortion position, for it portrays the unborn as more and more recognizably human), it becomes ever more difficult to say precisely when the fetus becomes a human person. Obviously, it is folly to say personhood is something we may grant at will - nothing prevents race-based slavery, infanticide, or even genocide if we claim this; rather, we must say personhood is something we recognize as being present already - and it seems just as silly to claim that our acts of perception effect such a great change in the nature of the perceived that it is permissible to kill the perceived before birth, but to do so after birth would be a base crime. To draw an arbitrary line some time between conception and birth with an appeal to science seems dishonest. We have seen that the egg and sperm, taken alone, are by no means a person. The only remaining alternative, it seems to me, is that the moment of conception, where there is something other - something not entirely the mother, something which, when provided nourishment and protection, flourishes and grows according to nature - provides the most sound criteria for determining when the human person begins.
So much for the theoretical argument. Some might raise an objection here, for the decision to abort a child cannot be an easy one, and there are many factors which might impel a woman to abort: poverty, illness, rape, fetal deformity, retardation, etc. Surely those who would proscribe abortion see the world in black and white, and the reality is not so simple. There are so many varied particulars at issue here that a blanket, absolute prohibition seems clumsy and naive. An admirable sentiment in its place, to be sure, and certainly, the above factors are serious, serious difficulties in the way of having a child. But are there acts which are black and white? Rape seems and always has seemed such to me: I say it is always wrong to commit rape, no matter the circumstances. The woman never "deserved it", or "asked for it" - it is to be proscribed always. To this I would add crimes like murder and child molestation, and I am not likely to be alone in doing so. If then, there are actions which are black and white, the question is not to attack notions of black and white, but to ask whether abortion ought to be numbered among them. And if a fetus is a human person, the answer is yes. Just as we would forbid the killing of an infant for the above reasons, so too before birth we must forbid the same. Even in the case of rape, even rape-incest, a crime of almost demonic evil - killing the child is not the answer. No matter the case, no matter the circumstances, it is always wrong to commit abortion - just as it is always wrong to commit murder.
First, some questions. What is abortion? Ought it to be permitted? How ought we to evaluate this problem, and what sources of knowledge ought we to use in our evaluation?
Abortion is the removal and destruction of a woman's fetus. This practice is currently legal in all the states of the Union, and in most countries of the world. Approximately fifty million fetuses have been aborted in the United States since it was widely adopted and endorsed some years ago; if we include the 'morning after' pill the worldwide total rises to more than one billion. The stakes are higher than any other moral dispute, and both sides fight with religious zeal. The anti-abortion argument in sum states that a fetus is in fact a human being, a person; thus abortion is murder and therefore it ought to be universally prohibited. Others deny this is the case, and the dispute has the irritating quality of tending to spin in circles.
What modes of knowledge should we use in approaching this dispute? One thing seems clear; the empirical sciences are of no use here; first because science has nothing to do with knowledge (in the strictest sense of the word, that is), and second, science has no concern at all with moral disputes, of which abortion is now the exemplar. Thus, scientific contributions are of little help in determining whether abortion ought or ought not to be prohibited. We must use immediate, non-scientific observations, taken from ordinary experience; and these, when coupled with sufficient reflection, shall be enough to cast some doubt on the pro-abortion case, and shed light on the anti-abortion case. One such coupling of reason and ordinary experience, providing a compelling case in favor of abortion is as follows: it is acceptable to kill a living part of yourself (cancerous growth, amputation, etc.), but not another person. A fetus is a living part of its mother, not a separate other. Giving birth is the act of separating with that part, so that it becomes an other. A newborn outside the womb is obviously an other, not a part of the mother. Therefore, it is acceptable to kill an unborn fetus, but this permissibility halts at birth.
This argument is the most convincing I have heard and am likely to hear. Of these four premises, I agree fully with the first and fourth, agree with the third in a qualified way (the result of birth is absolutely an other), but have some questions about the second. How do we know that a fetus is a part of the mother and not an other? To be sure, if the pregnancy is normal, we do not see, hear, or directly perceive the fetus at all. We might conclude, therefore, that was was there before birth was no person at all. Or we could conclude that it was a person all along, even though we could not directly perceive it. But an objection could be raised here; could we not say the same of human eggs and sperm? Might this argument make them also persons? It does not, for we could collect a man's sperm and observe it indefinitely, and it would never be anything else. We could store a woman's monthly blood and observe the same result - nothing. They remain only elements and cannot of their own accord be anything more. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that sperm and egg, considered alone, are not persons.
But what of their union? Though the resulting fetus is intimately bound to its mother, deriving all protection and nourishment from her, it develops through its own nature through various stages till birth. And why is birth so important? Because birth is when the child comes into the world, the moment when it is seen, felt, and heard. Thus we immediately perceive it is an other. But all these changes are changes in ourselves, not changes in the newborn. We perceive it, we see it, we hear it - how have our perceptions wrought any such important changes in the nature of the perceived? How could they?
It seems clear that a newborn is a human being, and it is as obviously unacceptable to kill it. It is becoming increasingly doubtful that any great change occurred moments before the child entered the birth canal. For if the newborn is obviously human, what of the newborn that is almost out of the womb, with perhaps just the feet inside? Is it still a 'part', not yet an 'other'? If it is now an other, what of when its head clears the womb? Just before? It seems that our initial inclination to judge a fetus as only a part of the mother and not yet an other has some serious difficulties; that if we recognize a newborn as a person, we ought to so recognize a fetus shortly before birth. We are back at the fundamental question: when does a fetus become a human being? After birth? During birth? Just before? When it becomes 'viable' (i.e., capable of living outside the womb)? When with sophisticated instruments we can discern brain waves? When its heart begins to beat? At conception?
If we are to rely on observations derived solely from ordinary experience (and I think we should, though the scientific 'evidence', as it gets more sophisticated, tends to favor the anti-abortion position, for it portrays the unborn as more and more recognizably human), it becomes ever more difficult to say precisely when the fetus becomes a human person. Obviously, it is folly to say personhood is something we may grant at will - nothing prevents race-based slavery, infanticide, or even genocide if we claim this; rather, we must say personhood is something we recognize as being present already - and it seems just as silly to claim that our acts of perception effect such a great change in the nature of the perceived that it is permissible to kill the perceived before birth, but to do so after birth would be a base crime. To draw an arbitrary line some time between conception and birth with an appeal to science seems dishonest. We have seen that the egg and sperm, taken alone, are by no means a person. The only remaining alternative, it seems to me, is that the moment of conception, where there is something other - something not entirely the mother, something which, when provided nourishment and protection, flourishes and grows according to nature - provides the most sound criteria for determining when the human person begins.
So much for the theoretical argument. Some might raise an objection here, for the decision to abort a child cannot be an easy one, and there are many factors which might impel a woman to abort: poverty, illness, rape, fetal deformity, retardation, etc. Surely those who would proscribe abortion see the world in black and white, and the reality is not so simple. There are so many varied particulars at issue here that a blanket, absolute prohibition seems clumsy and naive. An admirable sentiment in its place, to be sure, and certainly, the above factors are serious, serious difficulties in the way of having a child. But are there acts which are black and white? Rape seems and always has seemed such to me: I say it is always wrong to commit rape, no matter the circumstances. The woman never "deserved it", or "asked for it" - it is to be proscribed always. To this I would add crimes like murder and child molestation, and I am not likely to be alone in doing so. If then, there are actions which are black and white, the question is not to attack notions of black and white, but to ask whether abortion ought to be numbered among them. And if a fetus is a human person, the answer is yes. Just as we would forbid the killing of an infant for the above reasons, so too before birth we must forbid the same. Even in the case of rape, even rape-incest, a crime of almost demonic evil - killing the child is not the answer. No matter the case, no matter the circumstances, it is always wrong to commit abortion - just as it is always wrong to commit murder.
6.24.2012
That Broken Thing
No wonder my generation thinks marriage is broken. No wonder we look at it and reject it out of court. The love of self has completely poisoned marriage and "till death do us part" now mean "until the feelings go away". When the man and woman (or even just one of them) seeks their own apparent good regardless of the other, the marriage is damned.
All I can see when I look at my parents' marriage is misery and pain. My mother thinks my father makes no effort to understand her, and my father feels she hates everything he does; that he cannot make her happy. Were they wealthy, I have little doubt my mother would leave him.
How does it come to this? How, after more than thirty years, is it reduced to childish screeching and shouting? Why must it be this way? What went wrong?
Can it be made right?
All I can see when I look at my parents' marriage is misery and pain. My mother thinks my father makes no effort to understand her, and my father feels she hates everything he does; that he cannot make her happy. Were they wealthy, I have little doubt my mother would leave him.
How does it come to this? How, after more than thirty years, is it reduced to childish screeching and shouting? Why must it be this way? What went wrong?
Can it be made right?
6.19.2012
I Am A Seminarian!
On 16 June, I received a letter from Reverend James A. Wehner, S.T.D., rector of Pontifical College Josephinum. I have been accepted! I depart for the seminary on 17 August to begin a two-year program of Pre-Theology, followed by a four-year Theology degree. In six years, by the grace of God and constant intercession of the saints, particularly the Blessed Mother, there shall be a joyful ordination to the diocesan priesthood. The path I began to follow five years is nearing its end - ordination as a priest; thereupon a new path will begin; serving Our Lord as a priest in his holy Church. This path is far less clear, and as my examining psychologist noted, there is no way of knowing just what will happen after I am ordained. Ordinarily, given my penchant for detail, order, and intricately-laid plans, this might worry me, but I have only to fulfill the next step: prepare for my August departure. I have a list of books I hope to read, a distance I hope to run, intimacy with my Lord, his Mother, and my guardian angel I hope to gain, and music I hope to learn. Added to this are letters I need to write and other, less important details. There is much to do.
Yet I am not overwhelmed. This is the most exciting part of my life, and truly, each day is better than the last, for Christ is new every morning, pouring his blessings out upon me anew. Surely David spoke for me when he said "my cup runneth over". In the face of my mounting duties, I am but transcendently happy.
Off to joyful, leisurely labor!
Yet I am not overwhelmed. This is the most exciting part of my life, and truly, each day is better than the last, for Christ is new every morning, pouring his blessings out upon me anew. Surely David spoke for me when he said "my cup runneth over". In the face of my mounting duties, I am but transcendently happy.
Off to joyful, leisurely labor!