On Cardinal Stafford’s Speech: Are the Church and the State on an Unavoidable Collision Course?
On November 13, 2008 J. Francis Cardinal Stafford spoke before the International Conference to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. His speech attracted singificant attention for its controversial viewpoint. You can read the full text of the speech by clicking here. Dr. Robert Moon, a member of the ReligiousLiberty.TV advisory panel responds. Editor
“ . . .if Obama, Biden and the new Congress are determined to implement the anti-life agenda which they spelled out before the election, I foresee the next several years as being among the most divisive in our nation’s history.” Cardinal Stafford
“Widespread religious skepticism was the outcome. Nothing is recognized as definitive and “meaning itself is forever postponed.”[26] A movement toward “a dictatorship of relativism” is the diagnosis which Pope Benedict XVI has given to this phenomenon.
Is the current struggle between Catholic Moral Theology and Social policy, and Secular society political policy on an unavoidable collision course? The Pope’s recent phone conversation with Pres. Obama and Pres. Obama’s executive order making possible the use of American funds to support abortion internationally have profound implications for a potential collision course. Cardinal James Francis Stafford’s November 13, 2008 Address to Catholic University of America, “Being True with Body and Soul”provides valuable insights from a Catholic perspective to complex religious-state-secular questions.
Moral Theology is the Catholic teaching about how man must live to obtain favor with God. Social policy is the body of social principles and moral teachings written in papal, conciliar, and other official documents.
The most recent is “Sacramentum Caritatis” (Exhortation on the Eucharist) by Pope Benedict XV1. Cardinal Stafford’s address links sex and the Eucharist in a most interesting manner which bears much reflection. It should be recalled that Protestants have no Moral theology- ethics would be the closest consideration. It should also be recalled that the U.S. was formed by the “Protestant ethic” and that Catholic moral and social teachings in the high places of government are of recent origin.
Cardinal Stafford’s address notes the current court rulings regarding adoption and artificial insemination, with their implications for Catholic institutions and thus the “coercion” of Catholic conscience. It traces the rise of Secularism to Jefferson in his “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” Jefferson said: “Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free. . .who being Lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercion of either. . .” Jefferson’s concern was also coercion and specifically the coercion of conscience caused by religion. It is particularly interesting that Jefferson and Cardinal Stafford have the same problem in mind – “coercion”. The question, of course, is what is the best way to solve the problem of coercion.
The address is a forthright presentation of the Catholic position regarding the technological mindset which it projects forward to President Obama and his cabinet. The Cardinal lays the charge of “Deathworks” at the feet of the current administration. By this he means any and all acts which are “anti-life” including social engineering and the regulation of birth.
One of the philosophical problems he encounters, however, is whether in the case of aids couples should use prophylactics. Official church policy teaches that a state of “one flesh” is not attainable by the use of prophylactics The Cardinals solution is for the world to move from the “Ice age” of technology and secularism back to the “High Desert” of the Eucharist. It is only in the union of “one Flesh” with the “Bride and Bridegroom” that man is complete. Thus the “one flesh” of man and wife are corollary to the “one flesh” of the Bride and Bridegroom – unity with Christ and the church via Eucharist.
Jefferson, on the other hand, might contend that while God created both man and woman he also gave them both “reason” and that the church in unity with the state has most often abused both conscience and reason.
The facts are that both church and state are capable of coercion. One question the reader should consider is this: Is conscience more likely to be respected in a Nation where there is “separation of Church and State” or in a nation where the state adopts the “moral and social policy” of the church? A second question which needs to be considered is: does secular relativism have the potential to impose a state course of “social policy” and are we moving in this direction? Finally, is there a middle ground to these issues which avoids unnecessary religious or state coercion?
Idealism always attempts to paint issues black and white. The reader will have to contemplate the heart wrenching question of sex, aids, prophylactics, and reason to resolve these issues.
Controlling Freedom of Conscience
by Robert Moon, Ph.D.
September 21, 2008
Historically, most governments required citizens/subjects to have the same religion or belief-system (e.a. Fascism and communism ) as the ruler(s). Exceptions were seldom tolerated. Those who publicly practiced an alternate belief system to the ruler(s) were often intimidated, persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and martyred. In the discussion that follows paradigms typically used by governments attempting to control freedom of conscience are referred to as: the Gold Rule Paradigm (GRP), the Gatekeeper Paradigm (GP), and the Over Stimulation – Fantasy Paradigm (OS-FP).
The founding fathers of the United States had first-hand experience with totalitarian systems which attempted to control every aspect of life including personal beliefs. They recognize that without accountability, human nature could not be trusted. This significantly influences the structure of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. These documents have helped protect inalienable rights, including freedom of conscience in a way that creatively balances individual and community needs. This was accomplished by requiring accountability of those in charge via a balance of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
The historical problem of unaccountable human power is eloquently articulated in the following quote.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men . . . There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. (Lord Acton (1834-1902) British historian. . .’. Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 5 Apr 1887)
Increased knowledge with increased technology has brought mechanisms for control that would be the envy of every historical despot. Understanding the Gold Rule, Gatekeeper, and Over Stimulation – Fantasy paradigms can help one recognize how sophisticated political systems are attempting to control freedom of conscience.
Gold Rule Paradigm (GRP)
There are numerous historical examples demonstrating that usually “he who has the gold rules.” The general meaning of this saying is that he who has/controls that which is of value to a community, rules. The type of assets that make it possible to rule depends upon circumstances. For example, during a famine important assets of control include food and water rights. Assets also can fund sophisticated police and military systems to carry out the ruler(s) ambitions.
Before there were nations a patriarch or chief controlled/owned the assets of the clan or tribe. Being a member of the small community depended upon accepting the authority of the one, who owned/controlled the assets. Failure to accept the directives of the leader could result in exile from the community or death. Other historical examples of the GRP include: slave owners and slaves; landowners and sharecroppers; industrial magnets who control workers “who owned their souls to the company store”; medieval rulers and surfs, kings and subjects, party leader(s) and common people; etc..
Communism’s philosophy places party leaders (the rulers and controllers of assets) and common people on economic equality. The communistic ideal “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” has never become a reality. What has been exhibited with ruthless brutality is Lord Acton’s observation that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Tyrannical leaders/rulers are not limited to communism. Ruthless control of citizens has been observed in fascist dictators, Pharaohs, Eastern emperors with various titles, medieval feudal monarchs and landowners, Moslem mullahs, etc..
The Gold Rule Paradigm does have a people-control flaw. The flaw is that some people are willing to risk life because of their strong convictions to live by freedom of conscience and follow what they believe to be truth. Their actions are often supported by firm beliefs in both NATURAL RIGHTS and an afterlife. Rulers most often attempt to remedy this flaw by combining the Gold Rule Paradigm with the Gatekeeper Paradigm.
The Gatekeeper Paradigm (GP)
The Gatekeeper Paradigm occurs when people believe that other, specially endowed, individuals hold the keys that determined whether someone’s afterlife will be a heaven or hell. When the controllers/owners of assets, the rulers, are perceived to hold the keys to an afterlife of heaven and eternal bliss or hell and eternal suffering their ability to control others is greatly magnified.
The dual role of the asset controller/owner and gatekeepers to heaven and hell has been declared by many ruthless rulers. Such despots intimidate freedom of conscience through the fear of what will happen both in this life and the afterlife. Pharaohs, emperors by various titles, medieval ruler-bishop, Moslem mullahs etc. conveyed that they were closely connected to the God(s) with divine authority to rule civilly and spiritually. The pharaohs, various kings and some Roman emperors attempted to convey that they were part human and part God.
Who could dare argue if they believed in a divinely appointed this-life/after-life ruler combo? Only those with strong spiritual convictions based on a belief system where there is/are no human gatekeeper(s) between them and God. Such is the case with Protestant Christians who believe that scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers. This doctrine declares that a Christian approaches God only through their heavenly high priest, Jesus the Christ, without going through an earthly priest or other types of gatekeepers.
The Over Stimulation – Fantasy Paradigm (OS-FP)
A third paradigm historically used to help control “the common people” is the Over Stimulation – Fantasy Paradigm (OS-FP). Ostentatious exhibits of grandeur combined with fantasy have historically been used as control mechanisms. Exotic dances with loud powerful rhythms have been used in combination with fantasies about demons and gods to help induce altered mental states. The use of war dances in combination with mind-altering drugs has been used to enhance fantasies of invincibility. Some ancient religions had exotic ceremonies involving sexual promiscuity including temple prostitutes. Others promoted fantasy that children must be sacrificed to appease the gods. Walking on red hot coals, laying on beds nails, or carrying objects with hooks attached in various parts of the body with little or no pain occur in various religious ceremonies today.
Many citizens of our country are diverted from clear perceptions and insights by the Over Stimulation – Fantasy Paradigm. This paradigm is implemented via digital media: television, music, TV computer games, and the Internet. It is supported by devices that make digital media instantaneously available to a person anywhere at any time. The devices include iPods, enhanced cell phones with Internet and media display capabilities, small DVD players, various gaming devices etc..
A review of the materials that occupy most of the digital media shows a predominance of very stimulating violence, sex, and magic coupled with unrealistic fantasies. Statistics imply that the average child, adolescent, or adult spend more time with digital media than a person working a full-time job. The highest instances of violence pre viewing time occur in children’s cartoons which often promote toys where children can use play to reinforce violent mythical fantasies of the cartoons. Pornography is rampant on the Internet and in other forms of media.
The result of being bombarded with over stimulating and unrealistic fantasies is a mind-numbing-mental-state that:
(1) impairs critical thinking, vigilance, and attitudes of sacrifice so important to preserving our fundamental freedoms
(2) increases susceptibility to irresponsible and false, product or political advertising
(3) rationalizes unnecessary debt by making wants seem like needs
(4) helps individuals justify self-centered me-always-first (narcissistic) priorities even when these are detrimental to family and community
(5) motivates meeting unrealistic pleasure fantasies through unhealthy eating, thrill-seeking, and excessive and/or perverse sexual behaviors.
Individuals functioning with such impaired behaviors are very susceptible to losing fundamental freedoms to those seeking unrestricted power and control. They’ll do almost anything, including giving up fundamental freedoms, if they perceive it will help them achieve their fantasy driven desires. For some their obsessive-compulsive behaviors are so extreme that it resembles those with diagnosed pathological addictions.
Preserving Freedom of Conscience for Future Generations
The GRP, GP, and OS-FP paradigms have been used throughout the ages to control people by inhibiting the exercise of conscientious convictions. This triad continues to be used in our contemporary world as means of control, including attempts to legislate uniform morality. One fantasy perpetuated by the triad is the myth of trading freedom for security. An examination of history demonstrates when people accept this trade they lose both personal security and freedoms.
The founding fathers of America had keen historical perspectives which included a general distrust of human nature, especially of rulers. Their response included a unique constitution based upon the concept of inalienable human rights. The Constitution was intended to create a balance of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The hope was that this would bring accountability to leaders via the checks and balances included in the balance of powers and the rule of law. The strength of this approach was demonstrated in circumstances surrounding the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
America’s approach of a balance of powers and rule by law is currently being tested again and again. Will habeas corpus continue to be protected? A recent, five to four, Supreme Court decision (Boumediene v. Bush 553 U.S.___(2008)) gives us hope. However, a change in aging justices could jeopardize similar future outcomes.
What will be the outcome of the financial bailouts that appear to put government into the ownership of billions of dollars of questionable mortgages? If the legislation is passed as proposed it will prevent intervention through the courts. This will circumvent the traditional “balance of powers” accountability! Could this lead to new ways for politicians/rulers to control citizens? Will this contribute to citizens giving up freedoms with the hope of security that comes from the belief that government will do whatever is necessary to meet their needs (wants)? Will it contribute to a trend toward Unitarianism where citizens will be expected think and act the way that those in control believe they should? What is happening to “We the People?” — “We the People” are in danger of losing fundamental freedoms and inalienable human rights!
America needs to develop many more responsible citizens with strong ethical priorities – People who think critically, People who are vigilant, People who will risk and sacrifice to maintain our fundamental freedoms. This needs to be a national priority if “We the People” are to maintain our inalienable human rights and precious historical freedoms. Copyright by Robert Moon - September 21, 2008
OPINION: Patrick J. Buchanan: The Wars of Religion Return (HumanEvents.com)
Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan, in a column published by Human Events, explores the conflict between those who want to achieve “social peace” between people regardless of their beliefs and the “duty” to “make God’s Law man’s law.”
The full article is online at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp
Last week’s clash between Dr. James Dobson and Barack Obama is but the latest skirmish in a war that dates back to the time of Christ. At issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?
In a speech in June 2006, Obama, citing the Book of Leviticus, which declares homosexuality an abomination, noted that Leviticus also says the eating of shellfish is an abomination and condones slavery.
Moreover, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”
Read the rest at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp
WANTED: Freedom Champions
Think about the words “land of the free home of the brave.” It takes integrity, sacrifice, awareness, and courage to maintain our freedoms. A nation where freedom reigns needs courageous men and women to speak out when they see injustice. Martin Niemöller is famous for his lament about not speaking out when individuals were unjustly losing their freedom in Nazi Germany. Hopefully Martin Niemöller’s lament will strengthen the resolve of courageous citizens to champion America’s freedoms.
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller 1892-1984
Learning from the Past
We live in very challenging times. In the United States there is polarization of opinion fueled by fear, greed, and political opportunism. The media is contributing to a fantasy world which distracts much of the population from critical issues. Mass communication seems to be managed by vested interests so that citizens do not get important information in an unbiased manner. Many appear willing to trade freedoms and for security. Historically when this has been done both individual freedoms and security are lost.
A growing world population combined with greed is straining resources and compromising the environment. Critical issues involve: adequate food, clean energy, environmental pollution, and ideological hostilities. These critical issues are often compounding and interacting. The ability of oceans to provide healthy food and support oxygen production is being diminished by pollution and over fishing.
The issues our nation and world are confronting have significant implications for national and world law. These issues are creating extreme tension between stability and appropriate individual freedoms. Following are three quotations with insights relevant to our challenging times.
Study the past, if you would divine the future.
Confucius
For the first time in the history of mankind, one generation literally has the power to destroy the past, the present and the future, the power to bring time to an end.
Hubert H. Humphrey, 1911-1978, American Democratic Politician, Vice President
There are certain moments when we might wish the future were built by men of the past.
Jean Rostand, 1894-1977, French Biologist, Writer
The quotation by Jean Rostand led me to reflect on the other challenging times and how noble men responded to challenges involving human freedoms, national needs, diversity of opinions, strained resources, and openness versus secrecy.
Much can be learned from studying the development of the United States and in particular events surrounding the revolution, the founding of our Constitution, and civil war. Abraham Lincoln was confronted with monumental challenges as his second term as president approached. His thoughts on how to meet these challenges are magnificently reflected in his second inaugural address:
Fellow Countrymen:
At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
Add to Google