The 21st Century Secular Inquisition

Secularists often point to the medieval Inquisition as the icon of what they believe religion, particularly Catholicism, to be––an interrogatory trial to force individuals to adhere to doctrines. For example, appearing in the Huffington Post, author Cullen Murphy condemns the Inquistion thusly: "The Inquisition was based on intolerance and moral certainty. It tried to enforce a particular view..." Even the recent "Cosmos" 'documentary' claims a monk of the Middle Ages opposed to Church doctrine fell into "the clutches of the thought police."

Interestingly enough, even before the medieval Inquisition period, the Church made statements such as:

[A Christian evangelizing a brother] does not drag him and force him, but leaves him his own master. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Romans, ca 390 A.D.)

The Lord is a just judge and orders no one unwillingly, or under compulsion, to come under the yoke of the Catholic faith. (Albert of Aix, account of the 1st Crusade, ca 1120 A.D.)

And even in the modern period:

It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. (Dignitatis Humanae #10, Second Vatican Council, 1965 (EDIT to add quote 4/2/2018)) 

It would certainly be an error to impose something on the consciences of our brethren. But to propose to their consciences the truth of the Gospel and salvation in Jesus Christ, with complete clarity and with a total respect for the free options which it presents -- "without coercion, or dishonorable or unworthy pressure" -- far from being an attack on religious liberty is fully to respect that liberty, which is offered the choice of a way that even non-believers consider noble and uplifting. (Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975)

Any approach to dialogue such as coercion or improper enticement that fails to respect the dignity and religious freedom of the partners in that dialogue has no place in Christian evangelization. (Pope Benedict XVI, Doctrinal Note On Some Aspects Of Evangelization)

Pope John Paul II even apologized for improprieties during the Inquisition, insofar as they were historically accurate. He wrote:

The prayer I then addressed to God contains the reasons for the petition for forgiveness, which is valid both for the dramas linked to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds they have caused in the memory. (Pope John Paul II, John Paul II Letter on Inquisition Symposium, 2004)

Suffice it to say, in spite of any medieval improprieties, along with secular critics of the Inquisition, even the Church acknowledges the right of persons to be free of coercion.

Make no mistake, the Church communicates tangible, identifiable doctrines as organized, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not a secret that the Church teaches, for example, that God is Trinity (CCC#232ff), Mary is ever-virgin (CCC#510), or that the Eucharist is sacramentally and truly Christ's body (CCC#1374). It is also not a secret that the Church has clear positions on hot-button issues of the day, such as that fornication is sinful (CCC#2353) or that abortion is the taking of a human life (CCC#2271). Since these are all matters of "faith or morals," they are recognized by the Church as truths, which means they cannot change. Any penalty, such as automatic excommunication, incurred by a member of the faithful for rejecting one of these teachings, is rooted in the fact that the Church's teachings are identifiable, and that Catholic Christianity posits certain beliefs for the faithful to hold.

In other words, Catholicism is a religion with certain beliefs. One cannot be a Catholic while obstinately rejecting dogmatic beliefs. Today, and through most of history, the only penalty for rejecting Catholicism was to cease to be Catholic. Makes sense, no? Consider an analogy. If I insist society should have an organized government, I can't really call myself an anarchist.

Many critics of the Church have expressed disapproval that the Church will not reverse some of her teachings. That brings us to the crux of this essay. Secularists who decry the Church for adhering to religious beliefs are themselves rigidly adhered to beliefs that are, practically speaking, "religious." However, unlike with the Church, such believers do not admit to holding religious beliefs. And the punishments for not adhering to such beliefs have proven to be quite severe in this 21st Century Inquisition for secular doctrine.

As we examine several modern examples, we can see that those who profess to be religion-free are themselves no less religious in the sense that they hold certain moral or faithful viewpoints just as a person who admits to religious beliefs. As much as many secularists cry for freedom from religious views or moral impositions, there really is no "neutral" religious or moral viewpoint. Often, when the State rejects one of the Church's teachings, it is not endorsing some "neutral" view that is nondiscriminatory to all beliefs. It is positing a particular view just as "religious" as the one it opposes.

Let's examine some of the secular doctrines and penalties in question.

SECULAR DOCTRINES AND PENALTIES

The issue of contraception was largely covered here on TCV in posts tagged with HHS Mandate. That mandate by the U.S. federal government is iconic of the 21st Century Inquisition with regard to contraception. In its earliest form, the fed threatened institutions that did not provide in their health care plans coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs with the penalty of $2,000 per employee. This demand for businesses to embrace the secular doctrine suffered a narrow loss in the Supreme Court during the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case in 2014. Despite this, the mandate retains potentiality in other legislative forms and religious entities continue to spar for their religious freedom. Other religious entities, such as Priests for Life and Little Sisters of the Poor, have since suffered legal battles as well. (It it also worth noting, Catholic theology recognizes that taking a contraceptive drug for actual medical purposes and not as a contraceptive can be licit––thus the matter is not medical, but related to persons who want to live a lifestyle that causes their otherwise healthy and fertile bodies to malfunction.)

Next case. In 2011, the U.S. federal government defunded the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services, which provides refuge for victims of human trafficking. At that time, U.S. Archbishop Timothy Dolan revealed that the fed had insisted that they provide a "full range of reproductive services," meaning contraceptives or abortions. The Bishops did not comply with the Inquisition's demand. The charity was subsequently defunded.

Next case. This past February 2015 saw the California legislature initiate an "investigation," (i.e. an "Inquisition") against the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco. The diocese recently included a "morality clause" in hiring practices which seeks to hire staff that will support Church teaching. The State demands that the Archdiocese approve the hiring of educators who reject Church teaching and embrace the doctrines of the Inquisition instead, including abortion, contraception and gay "marriage." The lawmakers defended their imposition by declaring that the Archdiocese's desire to hire personnel that will not thwart Church teaching is "in stark contrast to the values that define the Bay Area and it’s history." Apparently, the Bay Area's "values" include having the Church submit to the doctrines of the State. The legislators also called the Church's attempt to hire personnel who will not thwart Church teaching as "divisive." Apparently, the legislators believe "unity" is best achieved when others submit to their Inquisition. Archbishop Cordileone responded to the State. His statement included the correction of erroneous propaganda, such as "the falsehood that the morality clauses apply to the teachers’ private life." Then, after providing hypothetical scenarios clarifying the Church's position, the Archbishop ironically concluded his response letter to the legislators with, "I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission. I simply ask the same respect from you." One may be accurate to suppose that if the Church had told a politician that the politician must hire only staff that supports Church teaching, the Church would have been told some such or other about "separation of Church and State" or that the Church should not conduct an Inquisition demanding others embrace their doctrines. The penalties in this case, so far, have included political strong-arming and can be expected to include whatever demands are made by the State after the "investigtion," i.e. Inquisition.

Next case. In 2011, a British couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, were forbidden by a court from adopting children because they would not formally teach their children that homosexual behavior is good. The judges in question made no attempt to disguise their decision as anti-Christian. The judges stated:

It is important to realize that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunize the believer from the reach of the secular law.

Let us consider this statement from several angles. First of all, it is not only religious persons who do not condone homosexual behavior, thus the court's decision to reject the view simply because it is religious is faulty, not to mention bigoted. Second, the teaching not to kill is quite explicit in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, yet the state does not reject this notion on the grounds that it is native to religion. Third, there is no "secular law" forbidding Christians to raise children. Fourth, the judge's opinion contradicts itself, because, as we are noting in this essay, a view such as endorsement of homosexual behavior, is itself equal to a religious view. They did not impose a neutral view. Their doctrine says that Eunice and Owen Johns would be harmful to children. For this, the judges were not able to substantiate cause. They gratuitously asserted that Christians are not suitable parents. The Inquisition merely lowered its gavel on the Christian and said, "Either endorse our doctrine, or pay the penalty of childlessness."

Next is a series of related cases. The United States recently has seen a barrage of Inquisition incidents against business owners. First, let's recall one of the sales pitches for gay "marriage." Last year, one of the gay "marriages" across the USA include Lake County, Indiana's Michelle Davies and her partner. Regarding her "marriage," Davies declared, "It doesn't affect anyone but us." In February, Nickson Chong, a writer for SMU's Daily Campus, chastised Judge Roy Moore for suspending gay "marriage" licenses prior to the Supreme Court's engagement of the subject. Chong declared: "Their love and marriage doesn’t affect you in the slightest way." He concluded with the universal order: "And if you still remain steadfast in your arrogant hate for same-sex marriage, then don’t get one."

Unfortunately, the idea that gay "marriage" affects no one but the couple in question is not true. First, the lexical definition of the term "marriage" has been amputated from any recognizable notion of sexual complementarity and fertility which is plainly native to the two genders. It requires no religious person to perceive this. Placing the onus of defining truth on the legal system is not a sound apologetic. This attitude toward malleability of truth is the same tradition in America that perceived blacks as 0/5 of a person on one day, 3/5 of a person on another, and 5/5 of a person on yet another. It attaches institutional definitions to cultural whims and fads. The movement is built on as shaky a ground as the emotional propaganda at its base. A reasoned apologetic related to nature, the human condition, and the concept of marriage is lacking.

Second, there are already multiple legal victims of the gay "marriage" movement, about which we were sold that no one would be affected beyond the couple. This is where the Secular Inquisition returns to impose its doctrines.

In 2014, Ireland's Ashers Baking Company, owned by a Christian couple, declined to bake a cake inscribed with "Support Gay Marriage." The "Equality Commission for Northern Ireland" then spearheaded the Inquisition against this couple and demanded they embrace the Inquisition's doctrine or face legal and financial consequences.

Going back to 2006, Christian photographer Elane Photographers in New Mexico declined to photograph a same-sex "wedding." New Mexico courts have since declared that the owners must subordinate their views to the State's doctrines. Hence, this Inquisition demands that the owners cooperate with a gay ceremony. Their failure to do so has earned them over $7,000 in fines from the State, as well as any legal costs and difficulties that continue to this day.

Stories like these two are common in recent years. The State and its accomplices attempt to treat this as an "equality" issue. You see the Orwellian term "equality" invoked in these Inquisitions regularly. And so, a person may ask him or herself, "Isn't this like not serving someone because of race? And thus a matter of equal treatment?"

The answer is no. Two other cases illustrate this clearer.

In February 2015, the owners of the 111 Cakery in Indiana closed shop. In 2014, they had declined to bake a cake for a gay "wedding." Subsequently, they endured a barrage of social media protests, as well as an in-person call for boycott, accusing them of "hate," "homophobia," and the like. However, the McGath's explained on their own social media page: "[T]his week we told a man that requested a cake for a same-sex ceremony that it was against our policy, but we would be happy to help him with anything else."

Keep that in mind as we look at our second case.

Recently, the State of Washington ruled against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers. In 2013, she declined to make floral arrangements for the gay "wedding" of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. In February 2015, the State of Washington declared her guilty of discrimination. As a courtesy, this Inquisition offered to drop the case against her if she paid $2,001 in fines and also embraced their doctrine by participating in gay "weddings." Stutzman responded, saying her morality was not for sale and compared the "deal" to Judas betraying Christ for 30 pieces of silver. But what is key in understanding this case, is that Stutzman knew Ingersoll was gay. And Stutzman had served Ingersoll for almost ten years prior to him asking for her to participate in his wedding.

You see in the previous two examples, there was no discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the customer. Both vendors willed to serve those customers, the latter having actually done so for almost a decade. This issue is not comparable to segregation, in which a business would simply not serve a person of color. No, customers like Ingersoll were served without incident for years. The trigger in these cases was asking a person who does not believe a gay "wedding" is moral to be a willing participant in that ceremony. If a heterosexual customer had entered their businesses and tried to hire them to serve the same gay "wedding," the results would have been the same. The business owners would have refused. The sexual orientation of the customer was not a determining factor in refusing the business.

The Inquisition has thus committed the fallacy of equivocation in their verdicts, confusing a characteristic of a person with a controversial activity. A comparable analogy would be if a klansman demanded a black baker make a cake for a Klan rally, or if an animal rights photographer was demanded to film a pig slaughter. The offending request is not rooted in some arbitrary characteristic of the customer, but in the nature of the activity the customer is attempting to have the business cooperate.

The bottom line in these "wedding" cases is that the powers-that-be exhibit all the qualities of an Inquisition. They force a religious doctrine on the victim, in these cases business owners. If the victim will not embrace the doctrine, the penalty is inflicted.

Next case. Let's look at this Inquisition from one last angle.

In March 2014, a number of pro-life students at the University of California-Santa Barbara held pro-life signage. In a stroke of irony, they were standing in the campus "free speech zone." UCSB Associate Professor of Feminist Studies Mireille Miller-Young took offense at one of the signs. She proceeded to accost the students and steal the sign. When the students followed her, she attacked a 16 year old female, drawing blood from the young lady. At one point, Miller-Young told her, "I may be a thief, but you're a terrorist." Miller-Young eventually plead no contest to assault and, by a court, was assigned probation, community service, and anger management. What was the University's response through all this? In response to the professor's attack, UCSB Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Michael D. Young circulated a letter to students. In the letter, he places full attention on the pro-life students, saying they are "evangelical types," "self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs," "anti-abortion crusaders,"  "proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief," and "outsiders coming into our midst." There actually is no criticism of Miller-Young in the letter. In fact, she's not mentioned at all. To this day, there has apparently been no sanction on this professor who robbed a student, physically assaulted her, and destroyed the stolen goods to boot. But, as the dean's bombastic and doctrinal letter reveals, the pro-life student is the enemy at UCSB. The dean associates their views with "outsiders." In this case, the violent professor had embraced the Inquisition's doctrines. She fought heretics of the Inquisition. And so the Inquisition's penalty is avoided.

The crux of this essay is to point out the religious quality of the State's and its allies' culture views. These views are not neutral, but doctrinal and, practically speaking, religious. Just because the State has not publicly declared they are imposing a State religion does not mean it has not practiced as much in the form of imposing specific doctrines. And we are seeing before our very eyes the 21st Century Inquisition against anyone with a different belief.

---

More resources and information on contraception:
Catholic.com "Birth Control"
EWTN "What the the Church teach about birth control?"
EWTN "Contraception: What's allowed?"
Jimmy Akin "NFP vs. Contraception"
Catholic Culture "The Contraception Misconception"
Catholics, Contraception, and Feminisms?
CCC#2370
Humana Vitae
The Catholic Voyager: Myths about Church teaching on contraception and the religious liberty at stake
USCCB Natural Family Planning (NFP) resources 

More resources and information on abortion:
Catholic.com "Abortion"
CCC#2271ff
The Catholic Voyager: Notre Dame professor's flawed argument for abortion
Catholic News Agency Abortion Resources
Local resources for pregnant mothers include such organizations as Waterleaf Women's Center in Illinois or Elizabeth's New Life Center in Ohio. One can also do a web search for pro-life pregnancy centers in their local area. Such organizations can help with finances, adoption, and more.

More resources and information on Gay "Marriage":
Catholic.com "How to Make the Case for Marriage (Using Non-religious Language)"
The Catholic Voyager: Replies to gay marriage arguments 1
The Catholic Voyager: Replies to gay marriage arguments 2
An atheist identifies "the central problem with the gay marriage agenda"
Christian Anthropology And Homosexuality
Unintended Consequences: The Flaws in “It Doesn’t Affect Anyone But Us” Argument in Favor of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage by Marianne M. Jennings, J.D. 

More resources and information on myths of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages:
Inquisition by Dr. James Hitchcock
CatholicEducation.org "Inquisition" more articles
Timewatch - The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition (BBC 1994)

Difficult questions modern Catholics face

I spoke at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton church in Naperville, IL on Feb. 25, 2014 on the subject of difficult questions modern Catholics face. Topics included suffering, hell, marriage, contraception, abortion.

Right-click here to download an MP3 of the talk. (40:21 minutes)

Notre Dame professor's flawed argument for abortion

Sketches by Leonardo da Vinci of child in the womb, ca 1510-1512 (acquired from Wikimedia Commons)

This past January 23, 2014, the New York Times ran an opinion from Notre Dame professor Gary Gutting. Claiming to base his argument on Pope Francis' recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Gutting cites "reason" and argues that the Pope should announce a "revision of the absolute ban on abortion."

FALSE PREMISE FROM THE START
The opening sentence of Gutting's opinion reveals an inaccurate understanding of what the Church means by moral dogma. Gutting writes:

Pope Francis has raised expectations of a turn away from the dogmatic intransigence that has long cast a pall over the religious life of many Roman Catholics. 

A "dogma," is the Church's term for the highest degree of certitude of a revealed "truth" in the order of faith or morals. Dr. Ludwig Ott describes dogma in his classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (which is used in seminaries, as I understand):

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such. (Ott, p. 4)

A dogma is a divinely revealed "truth." Compare this to Gutting's opening line which speaks of the supposed "pall" cast by a Church with "dogmatic intransigence." To put this in context of what a dogma is, Gutting expresses displeasure that the Church refuses to budge on truth.

To put this in another perspective, imagine a college professor criticizing someone else for refusing to budge on the number 4 as the answer to 2+2. It is nonsensical. Neither Pope Francis nor the Church can change truth. Truth can't change.

Whether or not someone wants to recognize the Church's capacity to have passed on a revealed truth is not the point here. The Church believes it. It is thus silly for Gutting to ask the Church to declare what she believes to be an immutable truth untrue.

DISMISSAL OF POPE'S WORDS IN EVANGELII GAUDIUM
In founding his argument, Gutting quotes the bold portions of the below excerpt from Pope Francis:

Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”. ...  Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 213-214)

Even though Pope Francis said "the Church cannot be expected to change her position," Gutting proceeds to say:

I want to explore the possibility, however, that the pope might be open to significant revision of the absolute ban on abortion  by asking what happens if we take seriously his claim that “reason alone is sufficient” to adjudicate this issue. 

He proceeds to offer what he claims is an argument for abortion based on "reason." But as we will see, his assertions are not reasonable.

GUTTING: THE UNBORN ARE ONLY "POTENTIALLY HUMAN"
After assuring his readers he is opposed to late-term abortions, Gutting then states, "an embryo or fetus is at least potentially human..." He also says killing someone includes taking away a human future and that the "same is true when you kill a potential human being." The problem with his argument from the onset is that there is no such thing as a "potential human being." This is Dr. Gutting's "dogma" and his reason for making the claim is irrational.

This is the logical fallacy of "confirming the consequent," the idea of running ahead with a claim when it's basis is flawed or absent. We'll see Gutting later posit arbitrary and unfounded criteria that supposedly demarcates the threshold between "potential" and "actual" human.

HOW GUTTING CLAIMS ABORTION CAN BE "MORAL"

He commits the same fallacy of "confirming the consequent" again a few sentences later: "[T]he 'inviolable value of each human life' does not imply that no abortion can be moral." Actually, it does. If every human life is inviolable, then to deliberately kill any human life is a violation, i.e. immoral. To deny this is to deny some part of the premise that "every" life is inviolably "valuable."

So how does Gutting justify this claim that abortion could still sometimes be moral? He says:

It is hard to claim that a rape victim has a moral duty to bring to term a pregnancy forced on her by rape, even if we assume that there is a fully human person present from the moment of conception.¹

There are at least a couple fallacies of argument at work in this sentence. One is the appeal to emotion. Since a rape victim is truly a victim who deserves love, whose situation abrades any sensible person's heart, we are led to believe that termination of her baby is made moral by her situation. Yet, this ignores the premise he granted, that "every human life is inviolable." He actually ignores that premise even though he granted it a moment earlier. The Church's reason for teaching the immorality of abortion is that it kills an innocent human being. Gutting could have made the same appeal to emotion to the innocent baby who neither is responsible for the rape, but he simply choses to forgo such thought in this essay.

The second fallacy of argument in his appeal to the situation of rape is something similar to the "fallacy of equivocation." In this fallacy, two different concepts are confused for one another. The emwombed person is a person regardless of the mode of conception, regardless if love or a cruel act of injustice were involved. The intrinsic value of a human being is not dependent on how he or she came into being. Following Gutting's logic, the equation goes as follows: Conception good = valuable person (with caveats described herein); Conception bad = valueless person. What is especially vexing here is that Gutting proceeds to say that a raped woman who gives birth still exhibits "heroic generosity." Why? If the emwombed entity is valueless enough to make abortion "moral" in this situation, as Gutting argues, what would be heroic about bringing forth something valueless? He can only make the statement if there is value in the enwombed person, otherwise bringing the child forth wouldn't be "generous."

GUTTING: BIOLOGICALLY HUMAN IS NOT ENOUGH
Once again commmitting the fallacy of "confirming the consequent," Gutting writes:

Other exceptions to the condemnation of abortion arise once we realize that an early-stage embryo may be biologically human but still lack the main features — consciousness, self-awareness, an interest in the future — that underlie most moral considerations. An organism may be human by purely biological criteria, but still merely potentially human in the full moral sense. ... there’s no reason to think that we are obliged to preserve the life of a potential human at the price of enormous suffering by actual humans.

This paragraph is especially vexing. He is willing to admit that a biological analysis will demonstrate that a human life is present in the womb. I won't delve too long into the irony that the Church, which is often misconstrued as an enemy of science, is validated on this issue by science. A human being is in constant development from conception to death. To cite a point in the timeline as a change in "humanity" is to fail to recognize the fluid continuity of development from the nascent stage to the end. It's not just a toe growing and then suddenly the ingredients for the rest are added at some point. Humanity is inscribed from start to finish, as even science will show by genetic analysis. Throughout the decades, the effort among abortion supporters to identify a threshold of when true life begins has only proven to be a carousel of inconsistency from person to person, from state to state, and includes thresholds from the first trimester, up to, and including, post-birth. I don't want to say their incoherence is the deciding factor in the error, but is evidence of unreasoned subjectivity at work. And certainly none admit to the continuity of valued humanity, developing from conception.

But let's look at what Dr. Gutting has offered as criteria of human value.

Gutting says, "consciousness, self-awareness, [and] an interest in the future" are the factors in determining whether or not it's "moral" to abort that which is in the mother's womb. According to whom are these the benchmark factors of being a "fully moral human" (since he would concede that "biological" humanity is present)? He shows no cause for so-called "actual" humanity to be contingent on these attributes. Regardless, if we were to go forth with this reasoning, it would be okay to kill anyone unconscious. This is also a call to justify the murder of anyone with severe mental handicap. This logic actually undermines his entire claim to be against "late-term" abortion because such an infant might not have "an interest in the future."

If we were to go forth with his above concluding statement, more problems arise. He argues in favor of terminating so-called "potential humans" (a concept he fails to demonstrate even exists) on the grounds that another person will be spared "suffering." Imagine if terminating another person would be "moral" if you could be spared suffering. You can kill someone who calls you bad names. You could justify killing someone ahead of you in line for a promotion. You could kill someone who snores a lot. Etc... etc... After all, if one person's suffering trumps another person's right to life, an argument might be plausibly made to morally kill anyone.

GUTTING APPEALS TO SUPPOSED "HYPOCRISY"
A final argument Gutting advances goes as follows:

[N]ot even pro-life advocates consistently act on their belief that any embryo has full moral standing. As the philosopher Peter Smith has noted, they do not, for example, support major research efforts to prevent the miscarriages or spontaneous abortions (many so early that they aren’t ordinarily detected) that occur in about 30 percent of pregnancies. If 30 percent of infants died for unknown reasons, we would all see this as a medical crisis and spend billions on research to prevent these deaths. The fact that pro-life advocates do not support an all-out effort to prevent spontaneous abortions indicates that they themselves recognize a morally relevant difference between embryos and human beings with full moral standing.

There are at least three problems with this line of thinking in order to justify abortion, which is Gutting's intent in this essay. First, the conclusion of this paragraph is nonsensical. No one is committing an act of murder when a miscarriage occurs. In the eyes of Catholic pro-lifers, the stakes of sin, heaven, and hell trump temporal difficulties. In Church theology, having a miscarriage isn't potentially going to be the reason someone goes to hell, whereas the sinful taking of another human life certainly could be. Christ died for sin because this world does not ultimately have the final word. So it would not be hypocritical for someone to focus on something that was fatal and sinful versus something fatal.

But second, many pro-lifers are advocates of all kinds of health and medical issues, organizers of women's health research, fundraisers, Catholic hospitals, and a plethora of similar causes and efforts. What standard or evidence is Gutting using to deny that there is not "major research effort" spent on such research? He offers none here.

And third, let's assume––hypothecially now––that Gutting were correct and pro-lifers were hypocrites. All that would prove is that pro-lifers were hypocrites. Whether or not there are hypocrite pro-lifers has no bearing whatsoever on whether fertilized eggs are human lives nor whether 2+2 is still 4. If his goal is to get to the truth of whether an enwombed entity is a human being, the hypocritical behavior of this or that person is completely immaterial.

POPE FRANCIS ADDRESSES NOTRE DAME
As if on cue, delegates from Notre Dame visited Pope Francis on January 30, just one week after Gutting's opinion published. Addressing them, Pope Francis stated:

This commitment to “missionary discipleship” ought to be reflected in a special way in Catholic universities (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 132-134), which by their very nature are committed to demonstrating the harmony of faith and reason and the relevance of the Christian message for a full and authentically human life. Essential in this regard is the uncompromising witness of Catholic universities to the Church’s moral teaching, and the defense of her freedom, precisely in and through her institutions, to uphold that teaching as authoritatively proclaimed by the magisterium of her pastors. (Pope Francis, Address to Notre Dame delegation, January 30, 2014)

Dr. Gutting will not receive a papal declaration that abortion is "moral." Because it isn't, and the Church is powerless to change truth. And Gutting did not, as he claims in his opinion, use "reason" to demonstrate otherwise.

Gutting did ask for prayers at the end of his essay, and I encourage anyone to oblige that request with sincerity.


¹No doubt, the situation of pregnancy and rape is difficult, as even Pope Francis articulated later in paragraph 214 of his exhortation. The Church would agree that such a woman is heroic largely for the very reason that she dignifies the intrinsic value and life of her child. Testimonials of women surviving rape with regard to life and abortions, as well as testimonials of those children born of this violation can be read at Silent No More, Live Action News, and other places. See those sites also for victim resources. Guttng also appeals later in this paragraph briefly to a 1971 philosophical argument attempting to analogize a woman impregnated by rape to kidnapping someone and attaching their kidneys to a dependent innocent. A review of the flaws in that analogy can be seen in a variety of places including at Human Life Review or Madison Catholic Herald.

3 false mantras intended to silence the Church

In today's entry, I examine 3 mantras or buzz terms extant in today's media and culture, each of which are logically flawed arguments, and each of which are intended to gather support for the censorship of the Church. Sometimes these statements are made by non-Catholics, and sometimes they are made by those who claim to be Catholics in good standing.

#1 - THE CHURCH NEEDS TO CLEAN UP ITS OWN PROBLEMS FIRST!

This type of argument is perhaps most commonly seen in news story comboxes.

Examples:

An ABC News commenter writes: "As soon as the Catholic Church cleans their own moral house – they can tell Catholics and Non-Catholics how to live their lives." A Minnesota Minnpost commenter writes: "Until the Catholic Church can clean up there own sins, [they don't] have any right to talk about any law." In another paraphrased echo, a Nov. 2012 CNN blog responder writes: "The catholic church needs to clean up their own pedophile-filled sewer before they try telling anyone else how to think."

Admittedly, comboxes are havens for high emotion and bombast. But this mantra is extraordinarily prevalent and not exclusive to comboxes. I distinctly remember 670 The Score host Mike North, prior to his departure from the station a few years ago, make the exact same argument in response to some public statement from a member of the clergy.

But all of these comments have the same basic demand. The Church must remain silent as long as sin exists within it. The problems with this argument are multifold.

To begin, these arguments, all recent, are founded on the myth that the Church does not address sins within the Church, particularly with regard to the pedophilia scandal of recent years. The folks over at TheMediaReport.com have cataloged a number of statistics on the improvement in Church self-policing in the last 10 years, in addition to stories often overlooked, such as false accusations that have falsely nourished the myth of universal sex abuse or other scandal in the Church. The Church has also permitted third party investigations, including the vast and recent John Jay report last year. The Church has called for seminary screening to include psychological tests in an effort to prevent infiltrators from abusing the priestly office. Early in the exposure of the scandal, the American Church brought in Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent to remedy the situation. The Church's response goes on and on. To argue that the response could be "better" or not is beside the point. Those who argue the Church doesn't address these matters are simply advancing falsehoods.

Secondly, these comments calling for silence are often addressed to priests or bishops who are by all accounts innocent of any scandal. What justice is there for my local priest, innocent of the crimes of a minute percentage of his peers, to suddenly forfeit the entire purpose of his ministry and refuse to teach morality from the pulpit? The demand is nonsensical on its face.

And third, imagine the following analogy. Mr. & Mrs. Smith have two sons. The elder son is caught taking harmful and illegal drugs. The parents have a talk with the elder son. But soon after, he acquires the drugs again, and is involved in an ongoing drug problem. Meanwhile, Mrs. Smith finds out that Mr. Smith has a certain addiction to visiting strip clubs. This has caused an obvious additional rift in their marriage and in the family. Finally, the youngest son decides to become a petty thief. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a talk with the younger son, explaining to him that it is wrong to steal. The younger son back-talks to his parents, to those in charge of "shepherding" him. He tells his parents they have enough sin to deal with in their household. The parents admit their problems and their ongoing efforts to solve them, but the younger son ignores the concession. He says "until" they "clean up" their sins, he will go on stealing. The younger son demands the parents' voice be silenced.

At the end of the day, where does the younger son fail? Do the parents have problems in their home? Yes. Do they admit the problem? Yes. Are the parents still the parents? Yes. Does the younger son ever confront the idea that stealing is wrong? No. That is where the younger son, the one who attempts to silence those who love him, fails. Stealing is right or wrong independent of the parents' personal problems. The association made by the youngest son is therefore flawed. And regardless of their ongoing issues, loving parents retain every right and obligation to articulate the immorality of thievery.


#2 - THE CHURCH IS ARCHAIC!

Another method to avoid confronting the teachings of the Church is to accuse the Church's positions of being archaic or old-fashioned.

Examples:

Raymond Gravel, an openly dissident Canadian priest, is quoted: "The leaders of the Catholic Church...have locked themselves up in their archaic and obsolete doctrines...they refuse any re-definition of marriage that would allow homosexual couples to legalize their union." Pamela Haag, appearing in the Huffington Post (whose erroneous, anti-papacy material I addressed previously) writes in defense of abortion and modern "sex": "Without access to affordable, reliable, convenient birth control, heterosexual men's and women's sex lives are effectively rolled back to the pre-Griswald 1930s." Following the Pope's recent utilization of Twitter, an anti-Catholic cartoon caricatured the Pope as saying: "This 21st century technology is great for spreading my 15th century views on gays, women and contraception!"

What is perhaps most peculiar about this line of argumentation is the insinuation that if an idea has an older or ancient pedigree, it must be wrong. Again, the accusation is nonsensical on its face. My eyebrow of suspicion is especially raised at the lack of similar accusations against modern scientists who continue to advance Isaac Newton's 17th century views on gravity and physics. Or where are the opponents of the applicability of Shakespeare's 16th century philosophies on love and other realms? Let's not even mention those professors who keep using Pythagoras' archaic 6th century B.C. mathematics!

The main point, of course, is that this "appeal to modernism" (argumentum ad novitatem) logical fallacy fails to confront the substance at hand. Consider abortion. For example, if the Church teaches abortion is wrong because it kills a person in the womb, then attempting to confront that claim by calling it "archaic" neither defeats the Church's position nor supports the arguer's position. It doesn't tell you anything about the validity of the argument. It instead treats it like a style of clothing. It says, "The Church has been pro-life for 2,000 years––you wouldn't want to support that any more than bell-bottoms, right? You'd be out of fashion!"

Secretly, the "archaic" line of argument defeats itself, for its logic defers to a future postulator that calls it old-fashioned.


#3 - THE CHURCH IS "INTOLERANT," "BIGOTED," AND "[INSERT DEROGATORY NAME-CALL HERE]"

Let's cut right to some examples:

Quoted in the UK Telegraph, a dissident group that rejects Church doctrine called the Church "mysoginist," "homophobic," and "intolerant." A gay rights group in England named Cardinal Keith O'Brien "Bigot of the Year," for believing same-sex unions are not "marriages." In May 2012, NY Times opiner Maureen Dowd wrote an article which warned in the headline of "the church's intolerance," and went on to claim that the Church is "intent on loyalty testing, mind control and heresy hunting. Rather than all-embracing, the church hierarchy has become all-constricting."

Let's forget for a moment about the 800-lb gorilla of irony who ghost wrote Ms. Dowd's column, and how her column is a test of the Church's loyalty to Ms. Dowd's views, is an attempt to influence the minds of her readers to her position, is an accusation that the Church has violated Ms. Dowd's defined heresies of "intolerance," and has constricted the Church's option on doctrine to the boundaries Ms. Dowd has set. I don't even know what to make of the "mind control" comment, but I pray I am not writing this with the spiraling eyes of a drone.

But what is the issue here, once again? None of these name-calling monickers confront the Church's actual position. They are strawmen or perhaps, more accurately, non sequiturs. If the Church believes that a sacrament, such as the priesthood, demands terrestrial representation of that which it signifies, and therefore maleness must be characteristic to depict Christ, the incarnate male bridegroom of the Church, then what productivity is there in simply shouting "mysoginists!" as a response? The same would apply to the Church's view of the complimentarity of males and females with regard to marriage, or the Church's view of life, etc...

If one refuses to confront the Church's position on the natural and theological plane and foundation from which it is taught, one can hardly seek refuge in name-calling as an adequate substitute. Instead many of the accusers have set up certain doctrines of their own. And those who do not comply are branded bigots of some sort.


EPILOGUE

There was a time when anti-Church accusers would prop up the Inquisition as one of a handful of historical events when trying to establish mistrust in the Church. Their view of the Inquisition was that the Church forced people to comply with Church doctrines or face quantifiable persecution. Today, that same activity is taking place and now faces the American courts. Catholic or other religious institutions are threatened under penalty of potentially crippling fines to embrace the state's doctrine of the virtue of funding birth control, abortifacients, and other bodily dysfunctioning sterilization procedures. Those who do not comply are branded as bigots, intolerant, archaic, and told to clean their sins before fines or potential arrests to civil disobedience are administered. What is it but a 21st century "Inquisition"? Have the Church's critics gone so far as to become what they have purported to loathe?

In 1942, C.S. Lewis's book The Screwtape Letters was published. It is a fictional tale utilizing theological perspectives. In it we read letters from a master demon counseling his apprentice as to how to lead a certain man assigned to the apprentice to hell. Page 1 contains the following excerpt:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.

And so when you see various false mantras assigned to the Church in an effort to silence Her, remember to ask yourself, what is the Church's actual position? Can I articulate it in a way the Church would recognize as Her own argument? Is dismissing the Church's position as "archaic" or "intolerant" an adequately reasonable or just response?

Update on Indiana vs. Planned Parenthood

Following is an update to the 2011 story involving the state of Indiana's attempt to withhold Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood (PP) of Indiana. PP argues that Indiana cannot exclude it from federal Medicaid funds.

Since that time, a district judge blocked the state's attempt to withhold those funds. This past Tuesday, October 23, a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago supported that decision and argued that Indiana must give Medicaid dollars to PP.

The circuit court's opinion can be read here (PDF). The circuit court judges were Diane Sykes (who wrote the opinion), Richard Cudahy, and Michael Kanne. 

THE 7TH CIRCUIT COURT'S SPECIFIES THE CRITERIA FOR A PROVIDER TO RECEIVE MEDICAID FUNDS

The opinion explains the matter thusly:

Under § 1396a(a)(23) state Medicaid plans “must” allow beneficiaries to obtain medical care from “any institution, agency, . . . or person, qualified to perform the service.” This is individual-rights language, stated in mandatory terms, and interpreting the right does not strain judicial competence.

That means anyone qualified to perform a medical service covered by Medicaid must receive federal  Medicaid funds, according to the circuit court's opinion.

 

INDIANA'S EXAMPLES SHOWING THE COURT'S CRITERIA IS NOT DECISIVE

However, the court's own analysis of the case may not adhere to that criteria. First, let's look at the rationale for why PP is considered a "qualified" provider, as well as the definition of "qualified" the court claims to be following (emphasis mine):

Although Indiana has broad authority to exclude unqualified providers from its Medicaid program, the State does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason—more particularly, for a reason unrelated to provider qualifications. In this context, “qualified” means fit to provide the necessary medical services—that is, capable of performing the needed medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner. The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violatingits patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice.

We now read ahead to the court's dismissal, for example, of two of Indiana's arguments from precedent that they can view PP as an unqualified provider. Here is the first, retold in the the circuit court opinion (emphasis mine):

Indiana also points to 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(14), which allows states to exclude providers who are in default on their student-loan payments, and from this provision makes another argument by implication: If the states may refuse to subsidize student-loan delinquents with Medicaid dollars, then they must have the authority to “avoid indirect financing” of any “non-Medicaid” conduct. But like § 1396a(p)(1), this statute merely stipulates a particular ground for excluding a Medicaid provider; it does not imply that the states may establish any rule of exclusion and declare it a provider “qualification” for purposes of § 1396a(a)(23). That would make the free-choice-of-provider requirement a nullity.

And the second (emphasis mine):

Nor does Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009), help Indiana’s case. There, a provider was suspended from California’s Medicaid program based on a pending criminal investigation. He claimed that federal law occupies the entire field of regulation pertaining to Medicaid and therefore preempted the state’s disciplinary measure. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, relying in part on 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(5), which provides that the states may suspend or exclude providers from participating in Medicaid “for reasons bearing on the individual’s or entity’s professional competence, professional performance, or financial integrity.” The court remarked that this provision presupposes state regulatory authority over provider qualifications. Guzman, 552 F.3d at 949. 

Here we have two examples of precedent provided by Indiana's attorneys. Both were examples of Medicaid funds legally being withheld from an entity apart from that entity's competence to perform medical services. Remember, the 7th Circuit Court on Tuesday insisted:

“qualified” means fit to provide the necessary medical services—that is, capable of performing the needed medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner. 

Both examples presented by Indiana demonstrate that competency to perform a particular medical service can be trumped by factors unrelated to those medical services. I did not see the 7th Circuit Court address that aspect of Indiana's argument. And yet, in its opinion, the 7th Circuit Court specifically ruled against Indiana because it supposedly disqualified PP for reasons other than it's ability to perform certain medical services:

The [State of Indiana's] defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice.

The 7th Circuit Court's opinion here is worded such that there are no reasons to withhold Medicaid funding from any entity capable of performing certain medical services. Yet, Indiana's lawyers produced several examples (such as the 2 described above) that demonstrate that is not ultimately the decisive factor. A doctor behind on student loans can still legitimately perform medical services. In the example in which there was a criminal investigation on the provider, the 7th Circuit Court considered it okay to suspend their Medicaid dollars even though there was no guilt at the time the funds were withheld. As well, one of the reasons the 7th Circuit Court supported that opinion is because of the question of the "financial integrity" of a provider. We'll take another look at that aspect of PP's financial statements in a moment.

More from the 7th Circuit opinion:

It is true that Medicaid regulations permit the states to establish “reasonable standards relating to the qualifications of providers.”  42 C.F.R. § 431.51(c)(2). But Indiana claims plenary authority to exclude Medicaid providers for any reason, as long as it furthers a legitimate state interest—here, the State’s interest in avoiding indirect subsidization of abortion. This sweeping claim conflicts with the unambiguous language of § 1396a(a)(23) and finds no support in related Medicaid statutes and regulations. 

The opinion went on from that paragraph to reiterate that "qualified" means competent to perform the medical services in question. The opinion reiterates that standard over and over. In other words, the state can establish "reasonable standards" relating to what is a "qualified" provider––the 7th Circuit Court insists Indiana's criteria is unreasonable on the grounds that PP is able to perform certain procedures covered by Medicaid. Yet the court was willing to suspend that standard altogether as we saw in the examples of the cases on student loans or a pending investigation, as well as other cases presented by Indiana to the courts.

SO DOES PLANNED PARENTHOOD USE MEDICAID DOLLARS FOR ABORTIONS?

Recall from The Catholic Voyager's previous coverage on this case, the state of Indiana submitted to the district court the following argument that PP has not demonstrated that it separates Medicaid funds from abortion services:

PPIN’s audited financial statements for 2009 and 2010 give rise to a reasonable inference that it commingles Medicaid reimbursements with other revenues it receives. ... financial statements provide no record that PPIN [Planned Parenthood of Indiana] makes any effort either to segregate Medicaid reimbursements from other unrestricted revenue sources or to allocate the costs of its various lines of business, whether abortion, family planning, cancer screenings, or other services. ... Medicaid, as a revenue line, is shown with other unrestricted sources of income ... This indicates that, while PPIN may not receive Medicaid reimbursements related directly to abortions (as federal and state laws generally prohibit), the Medicaid reimbursements it does receive for other services are pooled or commingled with other monies it receives and thus help pay for total operational costs.

In other words, PP uses Medicaid funds to pay for total operational costs, which of course includes abortion services not covered by Medicaid dollars. The only comment on this matter I saw from the 7th Circuit Court opinion reads as follows:

Planned Parenthood also performs abortions. The organization uses private funding to support its abortion services and takes steps to ensure that public and private funds are not commingled.

That's it. There is no substantiation that PP prevents Medicaid dollars from going to abortion services other than a cursory statement that it does so. The claim begs the question. The circuit court's opinion is filled with supporting documentation and analysis except on this point. What of the PP's audited financial statements as described by the state of Indiana during the district hearing?

It may be telling, however, that the circuit court's opinion elsewhere implies that Medicaid dollars do indirectly pay for PP's abortion services. Recall this earlier quote: 

But Indiana claims plenary authority to exclude Medicaid providers for any reason, as long as it furthers a legitimate state interest—here, the State’s interest in avoiding indirect subsidization of abortion.

The circuit court's opinion describes the matter, in their own words, as Indiana avoiding "indirect subsidization of abortion." The court's opinion is not qualifying the statement as Indiana's "perception" only, but rather describing the situation as it exists.

So on the one hand, the court dismissively claimed PP separates use public funds from abortion services, and on the other, indicates that PP uses public funds indirectly to subsidize abortion.

Elsewhere, the 7th Circuit Court's opinion suggests the same thing:

The point [of defunding PP] is to eliminate the indirect subsidization of abortion....Act 1210 aims to prevent the indirect subsidization of abortion...

In rebutting this argument, the court does not challenge Indiana's assertion that PP is using public funds to subsidize abortion. It rather seems to admit the claim as fact. Instead, the court insists repeatedly that PP must be funded simply because it is capable of performing other covered medical services.

After reading through the opinion, I was thus left vexed. It seemed that Indiana's strongest argument against funding PP was dismissed with no rebuttal, with no detailed explanation. Instead, the peripheral criteria of PP's "capability" to perform other funds appeared to be inconsistently described as the basis by which a provider must receive Medicaid funds.

Book Review: The Broken Path

The Broken Path (2011) by Judie Brown catalogs recent behavior among American Catholic bishops. The title refers to the many instances when bishops have "strayed from the path," so to speak, and acted scandalously or contrary to the teachings of the Church. I give the book 7 out of 10 stars.

This book is not an easy one for faithful Catholics to digest. Reading it made me uncomfortable at times. One is forced to confront the idea that bishops do not always act in defense of life, moral doctrine, or other teachings of the Church. I think recognizing the value of this book demands a certain level of maturity, to be able to admit one's own failings and the failings that take place at high levels in his Church. It also takes a certain degree of catechesis to understand that such failings do not mar the unblemished doctrines of faith and morals within the Church. Sometimes the ignorant or anti-Catholics advance the idea that a failure in individual Church leaders' behaviors is a good apologetic against the Catholic idea of infallibility, but such is not the case. Even the very idea of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not an "infallible" body. Brown quotes Pope Benedict XVI stating: "episcopal conferences have no theological basis; they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ..." (p 64)

Brown details several programs supported by the USCCB, for instance, Catholic Charities or the Catholic Health Association, which often advance anti-Church causes like the Obama Administration's health care plan and all it entails, including funding for abortion, contraception, and sterilization. Other groups mentioned throughout this book have influences within the Church that are opposed to Church teaching. Many of these arrangements have gone without much historical protest from bishops. Groups include Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. abortion provider; the USCCB's "Safe Environment" office which has been met with opposition for reducing parental influence in their children's sexual understanding; and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a group headed by supporters of abortion, same-sex "marriage," and contraception in schools; to name a few. Brown devotes a number of pages to these and other organization bringing scandal and dissent to the Church.

When some bishops work in tandem with or act passively in the face of such organizations, Catholics are sent a confusing or contradictory message. A good summary of such problems is in Brown's words is: "lack of consistency sends a mixed message to Catholics." (p 156)

One example she gives of the USCCB's confusing action occurred in 2004. Catholic Answers produced a voters guide identifying five "non-negotiables." Brown writes:

The lawyers for the bishops rejected the voting guide, claiming that it was confusing to people and that only its officially approved material should be used. This is strange, indeed, since the Catholic Answers publication agrees 100 percent with Catholic teaching that identifies five 'non-negotiable' subjects by which a politician is to be evaluated: abortion, euthanasia, human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage. (p 100)

If one researches the background of this matter, it seems the USCCB's lawyers discouraged use of the guide because it could appear to favor a political candidate and thus jeopardize non-profit status. However, it seems there is a difference in actively discouraging something's use versus not legally claiming ownership of it. At the least, the USCCB lawyers' actions and subsequent refusal to clarify causes confusion and scandal in the Church.

One of the problems Brown cites is a culture of "Americanism." By this term, Brown refers to a sentiment prevalent in the United States that "any group, or individual, could 'correct the pope' with impunity..." (p 19) It is "an amalgamation of pluralism, modernism, atheism, Gnosticism, and Arianism." (p 32) The Arian heresy was a 4th century doctrinal scandal in the Church in which the priest Arius sought to correct doctrine taught by the Magisterium. Such attitudes depart from the chain of Apostolic succession through which Christ promised truth would be taught by the Holy Spirit. Individuals and even individual bishops who thus depart from the consistent teaching of the Church cause error, scandal, and confusion.

Brown details a variety of quotations and actions/inactions by individual American bishops in recent years, bringing what is a significant problem in the American Church to the attention of the faithful. For example, she describes the of silence from some bishops who remain idle on the sidelines while openly pro-choice politicians continue to receive Holy Communion while supporting the so-called "right" to terminate an infant in the womb. In chapter 8 of the book, Brown reviews Canon 915 on providing the Eucharist and scandals within the Church violating that Canon.

Another specific example includes a letter written by Bobby Schindler to his bishop, Robert Lynch, in 2007. Schindler was critical of the bishop's lack of voice when his sister Terri Schiavo was publicly starved to death in Florida in 2005 in an act of euthanasia. (p 157ff)

Brown's book is fraught with footnotes linking to various articles and publications. It would be daunting to cross-reference them all, and the ones I perused were sound references. There was one long story she relayed, of which I was familiar, that I found wanting for detail. (p 124ff) In 2010, Phoenix archbishop Thomas Olmsted renounced St. Joseph Hospital's Catholic status and notified an involved nun that she had incurred excommunication. A woman received an abortion at the hospital. Brown did point out that Church teaching forbids surgical abortion, but the story did involve complexities that I thought warranted further explanation. The hospital justified the abortion in the following words:

Tests revealed that [the mother] now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued the pregnancy. The medical team contacted the Ethics Consult team for review. The consultation team talked to several physicians and nurses as well as reviewed the patient’s record. The patient and her family, her doctors and the Ethics Consult team agreed that the pregnancy could be terminated, and that it was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life. (quoted in National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 22, 2010)

Brown's focus in this story was to demonstrate the scandal of nuns involved with the hospital complicit in the abortion against the bishop's position. However, I would liked to have seen Brown provide more information on why the bishop's position was what it was. Bishop Omsted wrote of his decision:

[E]arlier this year, it was brought to my attention that an abortion had taken place at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. When I met with officials of the hospital to learn more of the details of what had occurred, it became clear that, in the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld; but that the baby was directly killed, which is a clear violation of ERD #45. It also was clear that the exceptional cases, mentioned in ERD #47, were not met, that is, that there was not a cancerous uterus or other grave malady that might justify an indirect and unintended termination of the life of the baby to treat the grave illness. In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church (Cf. Evangelium Vitae, #62).

In other words, the goal of the procedure was to kill the baby. It was an abortion. The baby was a healthy human being. The baby was not given due consideration as a person. They were not treating the mother's cancer that resulted in the death of the baby. This perspective, though a difficult one, is why the bishop stood his ground.

Another nitpick I had in the book was with this statement: "Magisterial teaching refers to doctrinal pronouncements from the pope on matters of faith and morals." (p 5) That statement is not quite accurate and may give the impression that only the pope ever formulates dogma. From the catechism:

CCC#100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

CCC#892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The Pope, though he has a special role, is not on an island. There is a real unity there that includes not only the Pope but the other apostolic successors. Though that was just a small snippet of Brown's book, I know, as one who delves in the world of Catholic apologetics, someone might find themselves confused by, or an anti-Catholic might consider it opportune to utilize Brown's sentence as it is worded.

Brown has a significant amount on President Barack Obama and those who influence the Church. Obama is certainly well-known as perhaps the greatest opponent to Catholic teaching in the history of the United States executive office. The current HHS mandate is a violation of the very rights of religious persons in the U.S. I thought that section tended to carry on lengthily as Brown gave detail after detail of Obama's political appointments, health care, and other actions.

Although many of the politically-intertwined scandals in the Church involve Democrat politicians, Brown does not limit her criticism only to one party. For instance, she praises Bishop John Smith of New Jersey for writing a critical letter to a school for inviting Republican and pro-choice politician Christine Todd Whitman to speak. (p 84) The problem is not one limited to political lines. And as some good writers have pointed out, the Church is neither Republican or Democrat. The Church advances the truth of Christ.

Along with the likes of Bishop Smith, Brown is sure to include a number of uplifting stories throughout the book of brave bishops who have stood up to politicians or other Church dissenters, upholding the teaching of the Church despite the criticism they knew they would receive. So even though the main purpose of the book is to show what is the problem, Brown includes a balance of positive stories for the faithful, offering hope that our bishops often do what they are, as shepherds, called to do.

And even after the writing of this book, perhaps there are more signs of faithful shepherds in the U.S. At one point, Brown writes: "What is it about birth control that scares bishops into silence." And yet in February 2012, after the publication of The Broken Path, 100% of all 181 diocesan U.S. Catholic bishops publicly condemned the HHS mandate, which demanded even religious bodies fund birth control. Perhaps voices like Brown's have helped remind the U.S. Bishops to all stand for the teaching of the Church as many of their peers have done in the past. Her last chapter is called: "Holy Priests are the Cure" which includes sections on several heroic bishops.

The Catholic Health Association does not represent Catholic beliefs

On Sunday, the White House Chief of Staff made his rounds on the Sunday morning shows. Jack Lew, attempting to defend the Obama Administration's recent "accommodation" on the Contraception/Sterilization/Abortifacient Mandate.

This comment stood out, especially since he mentioned CHA more than once in different appearances.

[O]n Friday we had a broad range of groups endorse where the president's policy is. We had the Catholic Health Association, which understands health care extremely well and is true to Catholic beliefs.

The President of the Catholic Health Association is Sr. Carol Keehan. [Edit 2/15/12 to add] Her position in support of the "accommodation" conflicts with the teaching of the official teaching body of the Church, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who disapproved of the so-called "accommodation" on Feb. 10.

So who is Sr. Keehan? In case you did not know:

Before the "accommodation" was publicly made, it was learned that the Sr. Keehan had been made privy before it became public. She had already emailed support to the Administration before the "accommodation" was announced. Her comments were then emailed to Obama supporters, including many of his Catholic supporters.

In March 2010, Sr. Keehan was given an honorary "presidential pen" given to political supporters when Obama signed the original bill.

On Monday, a donor emailed Sr. Keehan the following:

On behalf of all the women and men of Riverside for Choice I would like to thank you for protecting the rights of all women to have free access to essential health services including the contraceptives that allow us to control our own health and bodies. You have been a hero for choice in your Partnership with President Obama.

The emailer offered to send a donation to CHA, to which Sr. Keehan replied to this praise with" Thanks so much" and asked the donor to give to a poor woman in California.

In 2008, Sr. Keehan applauded then-Obama's appointment of pro-abortion Tom Daschle as secretary of HHS. See also in the previous link the Bishops' concern, now prophetic, that Catholic hospitals could be forced out of business.

Sr. Keehan received a standing ovation from a number of pro-abortion politicians last year in support of the initial Obama Health Care bill.

In June 2010, then president of the USCCB Cardinal Francis George called CHA a "so-called Catholic group." At the time Sr. Keehan insisted (despite the contrary in the bill) that Obama's health care plan wouldn't fund abortion. Of that, the Cardinal said, "Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation." And he added, again, prophetically,

[T]he dispute with the CHA involves a core ecclesiological principle 'about the nature of the church itself, one that has to concern the bishops' – namely, who speaks for the church on faith and morals?

[EDIT 2/15/12 to add] Dr. Anne Hendershott at Kings College in New York argued how the Obama Administration in June 2010 was already using Sr. Keehan as a "propaganda czar."

Sr. Keehan's consistent support for pro-abortion politicians is essentially no secret. So when on the Sunday morning talk shows, Chief of Staff Lew cited Keehan's organization as an example of "Catholic" support, one must understand that Keehan's organization is consistently on the side of whoever supports abortion and/or contraception. [EDIT 2/15/12 to add] And as mentioned earlier, she contradicts the very teaching body of her own Church on the matter.

Needless to say, neither Sr. Keehan, nor CHA, is representative of the Church's beliefs.

For further reading, see

What Did CHA's Carol Keehan Know and When Did She Know It?

EDIT 3/2/12 to add: Biography of Sr. Keehan at National Catholic Register.

When state violates Church

The first amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's a list of recent examples of the government directly interfering with or penalizing religious institutions based on their beliefs, even though they had previously been successful in serving a societal need. Example stories follow each in parentheses, although you can find these stories in many news sites.

• Aug. 2011 - The State of Illinois defunded Catholic Charities for not placing foster children in the homes of gay couples, despite the fact that Catholic Charities deferred such couples to other charities that did provide the service. (see Chicago Tribune)

• Oct. 2011 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of HHS defunded the Migration and Refugee Services organization run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The MRS rescued victims of human and sex trafficking, mostly women and children, but would not provide contraception and abortions. (see Catholic News Agency)

• Jan. 2012 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of EEOC attempted to argue in front of the Supreme Court that the state could tell churches what religious ministers they must hire. The Court struck down their position 9-0. (see Christianity.com)

• Jan. 2012 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of HHS gave Catholic and other religious organizations a legal ultimatum to offer abortifacients, sterilization, and contraceptives in their insurance plans against their beliefs. (see previous coverage here at The Catholic Voyager)

• Jan. 2012 - The State of Washington continues to try to force pharmacies to offer potentially abortifacient drugs against their beliefs. (see National Catholic Register)

• (EDIT 4/2/2012) 2010 - The U.S. Supreme Court supported a California law school that denied a religious group normal campus group privileges because it did not condone its own group leaders to support homosexual lifestyles. The court departed from several related precedent cases, including one in 1984 in which Justice William Brennan said: "There can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." (see USA Today)

Other stories of note:

• May 2011 - Although not aggression against the Church directly, the Obama Administration threatened the state of Indiana if it did not give federal funds to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S. (see previous coverage here at The Catholic Voyager)
  (UPDATE 10/23/12: An appeals court has declared that the State of Indiana must fund Planned Parenthood. ACLU lawyers on behalf of PP insist the federal dollars do not go for abortions, but that claim is not entirely forthcoming as reviewed during an audit of PP last year.)

• Feb. 2012 - It seems an Obama-appointed official within the Army attempted to prevent a Bishop's letter to be read by Catholic chaplains regarding the HHS ultimatum. (see Examiner.com)
• EDIT (3/12/12) - Mar. 2012 - The Obama Administration revoked Texas' federal funding for women's health because Texas recently excluded Planned Parenthood funding at the state level due to the numerous abortions it provides. (see Kaiser Health News for several article summaries)
• EDIT (5/3/12) - May 2012 - In SB 1172, the state of California seeks to regulate reparative therapy for persons with homosexual attraction who willingly desire to receive therapy. As part of the regulation, patients who seek such treatment would be forced to sign a statement, assenting to a number of the state's claims, including, "There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person's sexual orientation." Minors would be forbidden to receive reparative therapy regardless of their desire to receive it, and regardless of their parents' desire. (see California Catholic Daily) For a radio discussion and interview of licensed therapist David Pickup who shared success stories and scientific studies to the contrary, download this hour MP3 from Kresta in the Afternoon radio show on 5/1/12).
• EDIT (5/4/12) - May 2012 - A Texas court overturned the state's effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state's "Women's Health Program." According to the court, the state cannot exclude the abortion organization from the program. (see LifeNews)
• EDIT (9/24/12) - April 2012 - In Fort Wayne, Indiana, the EEOC ruled that a Catholic diocese discriminated against a teacher who embraced a form of in vitro fertilization, a medical procedure considered intrinsically sinful by the Church for its separation of procreation with conjugal love. (see CBS News)

The articles about "defunding" one may argue are legal maneuvers by the government since they are not legally bound to fund any private organization. But when coupled with the same federal government's defense of Planned Parenthood, and the pattern of opposition to the Church at seemingly every opportunity, and the fact that those defunded organizations condemned on religious grounds the same government's advancement of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortifacients, it is by no means unreasonable to argue that the defunded organizations were defunded based on their religious beliefs, and therefore persecuted.

One comment I see in reaction to the Bishops' and other citizens' opposition to things like the HHS ultimatum are that it is an "attack against women" or some such. Yet in incidents like the defunding of MRS, which rescued women and children from sex trafficking, I did not see the same cries of anti-woman directed toward the government that impaired that effort, leading credence to the conclusion that cries of anti-woman directed against the Church are politically charged.

The clearest violations of religious freedom remain the federal government's (and similar story in the state of Washington) ultimatum via the HHS for Church and religious organizations to provide abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization insurance against their moral beliefs. The federal government's attempt to interfere with what ministers a religious body must hire also was a clear violation of religious freedom, as even the Supreme Court agreed unanimously, 9-0.

UPDATE: 2/22/12 The Supreme Court of the State of Washington voted against the state trying to force pharmacies to offer drugs against their beliefs.