New Website!

 

If you follow this blog then you know that I have been the only person of our original crew to publish anything here in quite a while. Essentially this group project slowly morphed into a host site for my personal blog. Also, in the past several months, I have started writing for Where Peter Is and Diocesan. So I decided to create a new website where I can have my personal blog posts, as well the articles I’m publishing elsewhere, all in one place. (Sadly, that means I won’t be publishing anything for The Porch in the future.)

So if you like hearing what I have to say, please follow me over on my new site, Rejoice and be Glad, at pfahey.com.

See you there!

-Paul

NFP, Suffering, and Asceticism

Recently I wrote about how NFP is not good in and of itself, but rather can be good when used with virtue and faithfulness. I wanted to follow up that article by discussing the real suffering that many couples endure because of NFP and why that suffering is also not good.

Before we address NFP specifically it’s important to step back and talk about suffering. I think Christians sometimes forget that pain and suffering are objectively evil. Not morally evil, but rather evil in their nature. Saint John Paul II teaches this in section seven of his Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris. He says:

“Christianity proclaims the essential good of existence and the good of that which exists, acknowledges the goodness of the Creator and proclaims the good of creatures. Man suffers on account of evil, which is a certain lack, limitation or distortion of good. We could say that man suffers because of a good in which he does not share, from which in a certain sense he is cut off, or of which he has deprived himself. He particularly suffers when he a ought”—in the normal order of things—to have a share in this good and does not have it.”

Suffering is evil, that is, the lack of a due good. Suffering ought not be and only exists because we live in a cosmos fractured by sin. God did not create suffering but He allows it because he respects our freedom. Our bodies and minds are supposed to be whole and integrated, but because the physical world we live in is limited and because human beings have a knack for inflicting suffering on others, we experience illness, suffering, and death (CCC 385 and 405).

Therefore,  not only is it good to avoid suffering and seek consolation, but it’s a moral obligation to comfort others and help alleviate their suffering. However, because of our broken world, we will inevitably encounter suffering that is unavoidable. As Christians though, we believe in a God who not only stoops to our level and suffers with us (which is an incredible thing in itself), but who also allows us to give our suffering meaning by uniting it with his suffering for the sake of others. Paragraph 618 of the Catechism says:

“The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.”

And if we follow after this Suffering Lord, we are promised not only restoration of body and mind, but resurrection. We are destined to “share in the divinity of Christ” and become “partakers of the divine nature.” For the reason that God became man was so that man may become God (CCC 460).

Now let’s get back to NFP. I have heard it argued that NFP is good because, in order to practice it effectively, it requires discipline and self-denial. That it’s a kind of asceticism, something required to live out our baptism and something essential for growing in holiness (CCC 2340 and 2015). Blessed Paul VI discusses the value of self-discipline in Humanae Vitae:

“The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings” (HV 21, emphasis mine).

At first glance this passage appears to be saying that the abstinence caused by NFP is good because this kind of asceticism has a whole host of positive fruits for marriages and families. However, a closer look will reveal that’s not the case for two reasons.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

First, Pope Paul is specifically talking about “periodic continence.” However, periodically abstaining from sex is vastly different from the prolonged abstinence that isn’t uncommon with NFP. As I shared in another recent article, I have talked with multiple friends (who have instructors and are healthcare professionals themselves) who regularly abstain for months during postpartum in order to avoid getting pregnant again right away. Not to mention the years of indefinite abstinence required by couples who, for any number of serious reasons, absolutely cannot get pregnant again and have abnormal cycles that make effectively using NFP impossible. These scenarios are far from “periodic continence” and that kind of abstinence can damage a marriage. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council directly admit this in Gaudium et Spes:

“This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered” (GS 51).

In other words, long periods of abstinence due to the necessity of avoiding pregnancy have the possibility of damaging the  vows of faithfulness and fruitfulness in that marriage. And while long term abstinence is at times necessary, it is still evil. It ought not be. Marriage is “ordered by its nature” to sex (Canon 1061). Just like we were not made to be infertile, our bodies were not meant to have medical conditions that prevent us from sexual intercourse. God’s plan was not for spouses to have long periods of abstinence for “it is not good that man should be alone.” Whether it’s because of NFP or because of a tragic accident, we rightly recognize this kind of prolonged abstinence as a tragedy and we should be doing everything we can to alleviate that suffering.  

The second thing to point out from that passage from Pope Paul VI is that while the “periodic continence” he is talking about may be a form of asceticism, circumstance where abstinence is absolutely necessary for serious reasons is not asceticism. Asceticism is not forced, it is freely chosen. Just as it is the freedom to act or not to act that makes man responsible for his sins, it is that same freedom that makes man’s acts of virtue and asceticism meritorious. Paragraph 1734 of the Catechism says, “Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary.” Now, because of God’s infinite love and mercy, one can freely choose to take up their cross and offer their inescapable suffering to Christ, but in of it itself forced periods of prolonged or indefinite abstinence are not good or meritorious, they are evil.

We need to end the myth that just by practicing NFP a marriage will be better or a couple will be happier or more virtuous. We need to stop selling NFP as an elixir that will automatically bring you closer to your spouse. I know those of us who use and promote NFP are swimming upstream in a culture that accepts contraception without question, but we can’t let that make us so defensive that we reject any and all criticism of NFP. If we only speak about NFP in glowing terms then those who legitimately suffer from it will not only feel like they were lied to, but they will feel alienated, like something is wrong with them. NFP isn’t good enough, and if we want it to get better we need to stop pretending that there’s nothing wrong with it and that people who use it aren’t truly suffering.  

 

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles, read his work at Where Peter Is, or follow him on Facebook.

NFP is not good

I have often heard it said that natural family planning (NFP) is good. Both in the sense that practicing NFP is necessarily good for marriages, good for families, or good for growing in virtue. But also in the sense that NFP is good in and of itself. I would disagree with both points. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that NFP is evil. Rather, in and of itself, NFP is a neutral tool, an indifferent method of planning one’s family that can be good, but doesn’t have to be.

That being said, I think that NFP lends itself to good things. If used effectively, it demands self-control and discipline. It also encourages regular communication between spouses about the size of their family. In other words, it lends itself to growing in virtue. Pope Paul VI makes that point in paragraph 21 of his encyclical, Humanae Vitae:

“The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.”

Likewise, as NFP lends itself towards virtue, contraception lends itself towards vice, particularly towards the sin of objectification. Pope Paul also reflects on this in paragraph 17 of the same encyclical:

“Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

Further, Saint John Paul II comments on this idea in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae when he talks about the relationship between contraception and abortion. He says:

“It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived…[Both contraception and abortion] are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs…” (EV 13).

In other words, John Paul II argues that if a person doesn’t respect procreation and “the full truth of the conjugal act” they are more likely to disrespect any newly conceived life that could arise from their sexual activity, that this life “becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs.”

Photo by Shelby Deeter on Unsplash

However, just because NFP lends itself to goodness and virtue doesn’t mean it necessarily *is* good and virtuous. If we go back to Humanae Vitae we will see that responsible parenthood is good, that following the moral law is good, and that self-discipline is good. So it’s easy to see how one could jump to the conclusion that because NFP is a way to plan one’s family responsibly, that it it allowed by the moral law, and that, if used effectively, it demands the exercise of self-discipline that NFP itself is good. But that conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. NFP, like any other tool, can be misused. Couples can use it to reject their vow to be open to life (which is different from the infamous “contraceptive mentality”). Couples can refuse, or be incapable, of the self mastery demanded by NFP and resort to pornography or masturbation or just close themselves off to their spouse entirely. Spouses can use NFP to manipulate their partners into having sex or not having sex. And the list can go on.

I was talking with a more veteran couple not too long go and when asked if NFP brought them closer together, the husband remarked, “You mean despite how much it brought us apart?  Faithfulness to each other and to God is what brought us closer together.” This comment really gets to the heart of the matter. NFP itself isn’t going to divorce-proof a marriage anymore than contraception is going to cause a divorce. NFP won’t necessarily make your marriage great, but rather faithfulness will.

 

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles, read his work at Where Peter Is, or follow him on Facebook.

What to do when NFP isn’t good enough?

Recently I’ve had a few conversations with Catholic friends about family planning where they’ve opened up about their own struggles. One friend, who has several kids, said something like, “The method we were taught failed us many times, or perhaps did not work at all. And when we spoke up about this our concern was dismissed” Not too long after that another friend of mine was telling me that after having one of their kids they had to abstain for six months in order to avoid getting pregnant again right away because their cycles were so weird that following the NFP method meant simple don’t have sex. Another friend is deathly afraid to get pregnant because she has a medical condition that has caused multiple miscarriages and will cause more in the future, so the failure rate of NFP really scares her.  These are the stories about NFP that I’ve come to hear on a regular basis now, couples that find themselves in a place where NFP, indefinitely or for a time, simply isn’t good enough.

When the Catholic Church talks about family planning there are three principles that frame the discussion. The first is that parents have the obligation to be responsible, to look after the common good of one’s family. This means that the “physical, economic, psychological and social” circumstances of the family should be taken into consideration when a couple is considering having another child (Humanae Vitae 10). The second is that artificial contraception, that is, “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation” is absolutely prohibited by the moral law (Humanae Vitae 14). And the third principle is that long periods of abstinence in marriage due to spacing children have the possibility of damaging the vows of faithfulness and fruitfulness in that marriage (Gaudium et Spes 51).

In other words, couples need to be discerning about having children, but they can’t use contraception, and an extended lack of sexual intimacy could harm the marriage. Clearly then, there are very limited options for Catholics here, two options to be exact. The first option is do nothing. To let Divine Providence guide one’s fertility and family size. The second option is NFP. For many couples I imagine that the first option is a privilege they wish they had, that they didn’t have the health issues, psychological conditions, economic problems, etc. that force them to do whatever they can to avoid pregnancy. This leaves us with NFP, but what does a couple do when NFP isn’t good enough?

Like the friends I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I’ve encountered many people over the past few years who have found themselves on the margins of both the Catholic community and the secular world. These folks are apart of a silent minority of “hyperfertile” NFP users. They have tried multiple NFP methods with multiple instructors but ultimately their only recourse to prevent having a dozen kids back to back has been months (or more) of abstinence at a time. Then there are the couples who have serious, life threatening reasons not to get pregnant, and who also have irregular cycles that make NFP difficult and less effective. These couples are on the margins of a secular society that just encourages contraception and sterilization, but they have also found little support from their Church. Their suffering gets dismissed out of hand with statements like “God must have wanted the baby” or “carry your cross” with little empathy or actual support.

Photo by insung yoon on Unsplash

It’s often said in Catholic circles that fertility isn’t a disease, that “hyperfertility” is just someone’s body acting the way it’s supposed to. However, while this is technically correct, it’s also very dismissive. Due to health issues, family issues, financial issues, and the other consequences of sin, hyperfertility can be a genuine and severe source of suffering. In some cases fertility has all the characteristics of an illness. If a woman truly risks death every time she gets pregnant then at the end of the day her and her husband’s fertility is reasonably treated like a disease.

The Catholic community needs to know that these struggles are legitimate. The Church, from clergy to regular Catholics, needs to offer more support for our brothers and sisters who find themselves carrying this cross. We need to recognize that couples in these situations need actual assistance, not just platitudes. Telling someone to just “carry their cross” without at the same time offering to help them carry that cross is the Catholic version of saying “just suck it up.”

We need to listen to people’s actual stories about the suffering in their life caused by NFP instead of constantly being on the defensive about how great NFP is. We need to offer to make dinner or babysit or simply be a friend for the parents of large families. We need to invest more resources into developing easier and more effective methods of NFP.

I think that Catholics (at least in the circles I run in) have done a good job in the past several years of recognizing the heavy burden and real suffering of infertility. We’ve invested resources into ethical treatments for infertility and we’ve made efforts to empathize and support those in our life who we know suffer from this. My hope is that the suffering that comes from hyperfertility and irregular cycles could likewise be acknowledged and supported.

Bishop Barron recently said, “At the core of Jesus’ program is a willingness to bear other people’s burdens, to help them carry their loads. And this applies to the moral life as well. If we lay the burden of God’s law on people, we must be willing, at the same time, to help them bear it.” There are people freely embracing the full weight of the moral law but are finding little support from their Catholic community, what can we do to help change that?

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

In Defense of Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia

Argument: Concerning the reception of Communion for those who are divorced and civilly remarried, I read Amoris Laetitia Paragraph 305 (including Footnote 351) to say that individuals in objective situations of sin, but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion. (It also appears that this is the same way that the bishops from Argentina, Malta, and Gozo understand this passage of AL.)

This reading makes sense to me and, on its face, seems to be in line with Church teaching on Mortal Sin. The Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735).

If it is mortal sin that’s preventing someone from receiving Communion, and an individual and their Confessor discern that there are mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge or consent) that would make one not guilty of mortal sin, then why would that person be prevented from receiving Communion? Now, if someone is living in objective situations of sin, but aren’t subjectively guilty, the public reception of Communion could cause scandal. But that doesn’t mean that this person should be barred from receiving the Sacrament privately.

Here’s an example that is relevant to this discussion. Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her “second husband” threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the 12+ months (or indefinitely) it will take while they wait/hope for an annulment to come through. Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her “second husband”?

The Catholic apologist Tim Staples offer a similar, if not a more extreme, hypothetical example:

“Imagine a woman in the jungles of Brazil, a strong Catholic who marries in the Church, has three small children, and then is abandoned by her husband. She has no way of supporting herself, finds herself unable to feed herself or her children, leading her to abandon her faith and to marrying outside of the Church. She then has three more children with a man who is a member of “Amigos dos Amigos,” but at least provides for her and her children. She then has a strong reversion to her Faith and is told by a priest she cannot have relations with her husband, but must live with him “as brother and sister.” So she informs her husband. The husband then informs her that she will, in fact, have relations with him or else bad things will happen to either her, her children, or both. Knowing the police are in the hip-pocket of the “Amigos…” she is scared to death. I can see how a priest could determine this woman is in a place where fear mitigates against any thought of mortal sin. She is in a desperate state and let’s say she desires greatly the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession.”

And these are just two examples of potentially many more that could meet the criteria of someone in an objective sinful situation, but who is not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors.

Therefore Amoris Laetitia appears to be entirely within orthodoxy.

Objection 1: Divorced and civilly remarried couples are not being denied communion because they are in a state of mortal sin, they may not be subjectively guilty of a mortal sin. They are being denied because their status as being divorced and civilly remarried objectively contradicts that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified by the Eucharist. And this could lessen reverence toward the Eucharist or cause confusion among the faithful concerning the indissolubility of marriage. This teaching comes from, among other places:

Familiaris Consortio 84: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”

Catechism 1650: “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.”

Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

In a pretty extensive document he wrote in 2007, Cardinal Burke goes into the history and theological development of Canon 915 where he concludes (among other things) that, “The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.”

Response 1: This Canon is a matter of practice, not of doctrine, and that practice can be changed.

It is a matter of doctrine that one must be free from mortal sin, that is, in a state of grace, in order to receive Communion.This teaching comes from, among other places:

Council of Trent: “If anyone says that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And that so great a Sacrament may not be unworthily received, and therefore unto death and condemnation, this holy Council ordains and declares that sacramental confession must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. If anyone moreover teaches the contrary or preaches or obstinately asserts, or even publicly by disputation shall presume to defend the contrary, by that fact itself he is excommunicated.”

Pope Saint Pius X, in Sacra Tridentina: “Frequent and daily Communion…must be open to all the faithful, of whatever class of conditions, so that none who is in a state of grace and approaches the holy table with a right and pious mind may be turned away from it” [emphasis mine].

Other restrictions and regulations on who may receive Holy Communion appear to be a matter of prudential practice, not doctrine. Familiaris Consortio 84 admits as much when Pope Saint John Paul II stated, “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried” [emphasis mine].

Furthermore, this practice can be changed. In that same paragraph of Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II changes that practice by allowing divorced and civilly remarried couples to receive Communion when “serious reasons” would encourage them to stay together (like the upbringing of children) and under certain conditions (abstinence).

In other words, Pope John Paul II allowed couples, whose public status objectively contradicts that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified by the Eucharist, to receive Communion. He introduced an innovation of practice which allowed divorced and civilly remarried couples to receive communion even though their circumstances still objectively contradicts God’s law.

So if this exception is made (by a pope teaching through an Apostolic Exhortation) for these couples, it is not unreasonable for the exception to be extended (by a pope teaching through an Apostolic Exhortation) to some other divorced and civilly remarried couples, like the original example above, who are not subjectively culpable of mortal sin because of mitigating factors.

Objection 2: Canon 915 is not merely a matter of ecclesial law or prudential practice, but is rather a matter of divine law that cannot be changed. In the year 2000 The Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts wrote a document about Canon 915 in which they stated, “The prohibition found in the cited canon [915], by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.”

Response 2: The pope is not changing or revoking Canon 915, but rather clarifying that some divorced and civilly remarried individuals do not meet the criteria of the canon.

Canon 912 states that “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.” And Canon 18 says that “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.” In other words, the faithful have a right to receive Holy Communion unless prohibited by law, but any laws prohibiting reception must be interpreted in the strictest sense. Therefore, when Canon 915 states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion” it means that only someone who meets all three of those criteria (obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin) can be denied Communion.

Now the Pope is the supreme legislator of Canon Law and therefore is the supreme interpreter of the law. In the infamous eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia, the Holy Father speaks of those who “flaunt an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal,” and he says that through their actions they are separated from the community (AL 297). These individuals certainly meet the criteria listed in Canon 915.

This is a different situation though from those (like the women in the examples at the beginning of this article) who wish to change but who find themselves prevented from changing because of their circumstances. Those individuals in this position do not meet the criteria listed in Canon 915 because they are not obstinate in their sin and thus their situation does not prevent them from receiving Holy Communion.

Conclusion 1: Any theologian who understands the difference between an objective action and subjective culpability should be able to recognize that Amoris Laetitia is within orthodoxy. The middle school students I teach sometimes have a difficult time understanding this distinction but the high schoolers I teach usually get it. So it is difficult not to conclude that those who are publicly accusing the Holy Father, not of being confusing or ambiguous, but of outright propagating heresy, are allowing a personal animus against Pope Francis to cloud their reason.

Conclusion 2: Amoris Laetitia is clearly a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Father, therefore the teaching is protected by Divine assistance and demands the religious submission of mind and will. This conclusion is made clear by these sources:

Lumen Gentium 25: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” [emphasis mine].

Catechism 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” [emphasis mine].

Donum Veritatis 17: “One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful” [emphasis mine].

Conclusion 3: Those who are publicly disagreeing with Pope Francis are breeding dissent and contempt for legitimate authority by creating a “parallel magisterium.”

When a theologian disagrees in some way with the Magisterium they have“the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself.” However, “the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth” (Donum Veritatis 30). This is because “public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church,” otherwise called “dissent,” can cause “serious harm” to the “community of the Church” (Donum Veritatis 32).

Therefore, those who publicly join together to correct the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, presuming to know better than the Divinely assisted Bishop of Rome, create a “parallel-magisterium” that breeds dissent and contempt for authority. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in Donum Varitatis, “As to the ‘parallel magisterium’, it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority” (Donum Veritatis 34).

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

Truth and Love is neither Left or Right

I graduated from college in the spring of 2012, in the middle of President Obama’s second race for the White House. Up to that point I was what one could call a one issue voter. I was raised and homeschooled in a Catholic household with parents and peers who were very active in pro-life work, values that were very obviously passed on to me. After high-school I went to a small Catholic college that, for the most part, must have thought the “liberal” in liberal arts meant “whatever the Democratic Party is supporting.” But instead of challenging my conservative, pro-life views, that hostile environment bolstered them. If the liberals at my school were so wrong about the culture war issues that were always at the forefront of campus controversies, then conservative Catholic thinkers from The Catholic Thing and First Things must be right, right?

After I left college I must have felt less on the defensive and more free to question my once firmly held political beliefs, and my interest in Catholic Social Teaching expanded beyond the culture war issues I had fought about on campus. Then after the 2016 election happened and I really started diving into the breadth and depth Catholic Social Teaching, I began to see the fatal flaws in a Catholicism influenced by conservative politics, the Catholicism I had once so ardently followed. I felt duped to some extent. What I thought was real Catholicism was just as flawed as my previous culture war enemies.

At a talk I went to in college I remember being introduced to The Five Non-Negotiable Issues (abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage). These issues, I was told, are the most important issues because they are “intrinsically evil,” that is, completely unjustifiable and evil in all circumstances. Thus when choosing to vote for someone I must first look at where they stand on these five issues. I was sold. This argument made sense to me, and I essentially formed all of my political opinions on this sole criteria. The problem with The Five Non-Negotiables is that this prioritization of issues is made up.

The Five Non-Negotiables tell a partial truth. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that those five issues are intrinsically evil and that intrinsically evil issues should take priority over other issues, but here’s the kicker, there are many more than five intrinsic evils. In their document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops refers to all of the following issues as intrinsically evil:

• abortion
  
• euthanasia
  
• human cloning
  
• destructive research on human embryos
  
• genocide
  
• torture
  
• targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war
  
• acts of racism
  
• treating workers as mere means to an end
  
• deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions
  
• treating the poor as disposable
  
• redefining marriage

Further, the Council Fathers at Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, 27) say that the following issues are all “opposed to life itself” and “infamies” that “poison human society” and are a “supreme dishonor to the Creator.” Then in 1993 Pope Saint John Paul II (Veritatis Splendor, 80) explicitly taught that these same issues are intrinsically evil:

• any type of murder
• genocide
• abortion
• euthanasia
• willful self-destruction
• mutilation
• torments inflicted on body or mind
• subhuman living conditions
• arbitrary imprisonment
• deportation
• slavery
• prostitution
• the selling of women and children
• disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons

All of these issues are of the same moral weight as abortion and same-sex marriage, but where is the outcry from Republicans about torture, targeting of noncombatants during war, acts of racism, treating workers as mere means to an end, deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions, deportation, arbitrary imprisonment, etc, etc? Not only is there little or no outcry, many Republicans, Catholics included, outright support some of these issues.

Catholic Cathedral in Nagasaki

To give an example of this point, last Sunday, August 6th, was the anniversary of the US bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. With that anniversary came multiple conservative, pro-life, Catholics defending the use of nuclear weapons on civilians (here’s one example). These Catholics defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though targeting non-combatants is intrinsically evil and even though Vatican II explicitly states that “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”

And this is just one example. When’s the last time you heard a Catholic Republican up in arms against torture or deportation or treating workers as mere means to an end? When’s the last time you heard Catholic Republicans saying that they simply cannot vote for a candidate if that person supports torture or targeting non-combatants during war? Here I’m reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”

Furthermore, while intrinsic evils must be our priority, that does not give us the leeway to ignore all other issues. In the same document referred to above, the USCCB speaks about two “temptations” that distort the Church’s social teaching. They state (emphasis mine):

The first [temptation] is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity…

The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in this 2002 document, teaches something similar, “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility toward the common good.”

In other words, as I said above, “intrinsically evil” just means that it’s evil in all circumstances. So if something isn’t intrinsically evil, it just means that there are some cases where it can be done morally. The key here is “some cases” not “any case.” Just because a moral issue has room for prudential judgment does not mean there aren’t concrete parameters that divide the acceptable from the unacceptable. The Church gives us guidance, for example, on what a just wage is and what a just immigration policy looks like. These are the parameters that as faithful Catholics we must work within as we are discerning our prudential judgments about these issues. Prudential judgement is the responsibility faithful Catholics have to use the moral parameters given to use by the Church so that we can best apply Church teaching to the real world, it is not the freedom to decide whether or not we can ignore the Church’s guidance on these issues.

The problem I see, on a regular basis, is Catholic Republicans totally dismissing or ignoring an issue, or ignoring the parameters given to us by the Church, just because it isn’t intrinsically evil. But, according to the teachings I quoted above, outright dismissing these non-intrinsically evil issues is to act contrary to the will of the Church.

The more I study Catholic Social Teaching the more politically homeless I have become. I realize that in the past I let my political ideology influence my faith rather than the other way around. There was one passage in the USCCB document that I’ve referenced that struck me the first time I read it. The bishops say:

As citizens, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths or approve intrinsically evil acts. We are called to bring together our principles and our political choices, our values and our votes, to help build a civilization of truth and love.

As I continually try and put my faith first and my politics second, as I try and be more consistent, I urge other faithful Catholics, whether you are politically liberal or conservative, to do the same. It is only when we can personally set aside the secular shackles of our Right vs. Left political landscape and strive to put the City of God before the City of Man that we will “build a civilization of truth and love.”

 

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

Private Property and the Redistribution of Wealth

As an American it is difficult at times to think beyond the Right/Left, Capitalist/Socialist dichotomy that permeates our economic and political landscape. This often makes it difficult for Catholics on either side of the aisle to understand what the Church teaches about the ownership and use of property. As we should always strive to be Catholics first and Americans second, my hope with this article is to concisely share with you what the Church teaches concerning private property, the common good, and the role of government. I hope to dispel any notion of the Church being Capitalist or Socialist as She cuts through and transcends both of these ideologies.

To begin with, the Church recognizes the right to private property. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says, “Private property…constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty” and “..is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy…” (Paragraph 176). Further, Pope Leo XIII states, “private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners” (Paragraph 46). The defense of private property is one of the reasons that the Church condemns Communism (Paragraphs 111-118). Further, the right to private ownership is a natural right given to us by God, not one merely granted by the state. (Paragraph 45).

However, while private property is indeed a natural right, it flows from what the Church calls “the universal destination of goods.” The Catechism says, “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race” (Paragraph 2402). Likewise, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council stated, “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples” (Paragraph 69).

How is this related to private property? According to St. Thomas Aquinas,  “the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason” (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 66, a. 2). In other words, private property is the most reasonable means for man to respect the universal destination of goods. In fact, when Aquinas argues for the necessity of private property he does so on pragmatic terms (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 66, a. 2). Thus the universal destination of goods is prior to the right to private property (Paragraph 2403), the possession of property is simply the means to an end (Paragraph 177).

Furthermore, the Church recognizes that the right to private property is not absolute. The Compendium states, “Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone’” (Paragraph 177). Simply put, the right to own something does not mean the right to use it however one wishes. The use of property is ordered to the common good. Vatican II states, “In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others” (Paragraph 69).

In fact, the Church has very clear and direct teachings about the proper use of material goods. Pope Leo XIII says that we have the duty to give all excess wealth, anything beyond necessity and propriety, to those in need (Paragraph 22). Pope Paul VI amps up this teaching and quotes St. Ambrose saying, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich” (Paragraph 23). The pope continues, “No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life” (Paragraph 23).

Notice in this teaching that the Church is explicitly stating that when we give to the poor from our excess we are not performing an act of charity, but an act of justice. The Catechism, quoting Pope Paul VI puts it this way, “”The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity” (Paragraph 2446).

Now that we are clear that the misuse of our excess property is a matter of justice and not one of personal charity I want to talk about the role of the government in all of this. First, it is worth noting that the Church does not have a negative view of the state, as if government is a necessary evil of some sort. Rather, the Church recognizes that government is both inherent to human nature and ordered toward the common good (Paragraph 384).

Now, regarding the use, or misuse, of private property, the Church also sees the state as having a necessary role. The Catechism teaches, “Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good” (Paragraph 2406). Further, this regulation of the right to ownership includes the redistribution of property. The Compendium says, “Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen” (Paragraph 303). Pope Benedict XVI affirms this teaching saying that “Economic life…also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics” and he goes on to say that the state needs to intervene into civil society “for purposes of redistribution” in order for society to regulate itself (Paragraphs 37 and 39).

In addition, if it is not clear already, should the state regulate the use of property in order to redistribute the resources of a society, it is the excessively wealthy, and only the excessively wealthy, who should be targeted. Pope Pius XI states:

“It must likewise be the special care of the State to create those material conditions of life without which an orderly society cannot exist…To achieve this end demanded by the pressing needs of the common welfare, the wealthy classes must be induced to assume those burdens without which human society cannot be saved nor they themselves remain secure. However, measures taken by the State with this end in view ought to be of such a nature that they will really affect those who actually possess more than their share of capital resources, and who continue to accumulate them to the grievous detriment of others” (Paragraph 75).

From all of this it becomes clear that the Church sees government as having not just the authority, but the duty, to limit and regulate the use of private property, even if this means redistributing that property, in order to meet the needs of the poor and promote the common good. Furthermore, Pope Pius XI says that this kind of regulation not only strengthens and safeguards the right to private property, but it is also a “friendly service” for property owners. Referencing Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI states:

“Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. “For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man’s law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.” Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them” (Paragraph 49).

So on one hand the Church unapologetically values and promotes the right to private property, while on the other hand the Church recognizes that it is the duty of the government to help ensure that this private property is being used justly, even if that means redistributing that property. Like I said at the beginning of the article, this teaching cuts through the Right/Left dichotomy we find ourselves in, which could be both refreshing and frustrating. But there it stands, demanding our attention and inviting our intellectual assent.

 

Works Cited:
Caritas in Veritate
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Divini Redemptoris
Gaudium et Spes
Populorum Progressio
Quadragesimo Anno
Rerum Novarum
Summa Theologiae

 

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

Trump: Pulling Back the Curtain on America’s Hypocrisies

I think that Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency have unveiled, and exploited, the hypocritical underbelly of the Left, the Right, the media, and Conservative Christianity and put those faults on a national display.

(Obviously I’m making generalizations here, not every individual in these groups is responsible. Though it’s clear that these generalizations aren’t void of some truth.)

First, in the past few months we have seen the violent intolerance of the tolerant left. One of my old professors used to say “The tolerant cannot tolerate the intolerant,” and this has been displayed at places like UC Berkeley where free speech is something to fight against and not for.

Second, one of the things that set Trump apart early in his campaign and helped attract such a loyal base was his nationalistic and xenophobic rhetoric. He taped into the underbelly of American Conservatism that in one breath wants the Ten Commandments in courtrooms but also ignores the command to welcome to stranger. Who in one breath says “we are pro-life” and “all lives matter” while also saying “America First” and refusing to recognize the dignity of the foreigner fleeing violence and poverty.

Third, Trump has revealed and exploited the subtle (and not so subtle) liberal bias within the media. The very bias that has refused to call pro-lifers anything by “anti-choice” and has consistently ignored the March for Life every. single. year. The very bias that has driven conservatives toward “fake news” for years because people do not like being continually deceived and misrepresented.

Finally, Trump’s campaign put the hypocrisy of American Conservative Christianity on full display. For years the Christian Right spoke of “family values,” the “sanctity of marriage,” and, in the era of President Clinton, they insisted that “character matters.” Then when Trump was the only Republican left standing they, without apology or hesitation, publicly endorsed a thrice married adulterer who makes money off of porn and who treats women as sexual objects. They proved that their Party comes before their Faith.

Politics runs downstream of culture. President Trump isn’t the cause of our woes, he is the symptom. We who made winning a higher priority than our principles created President Trump. We who claimed a moral high ground with lectures on tolerance while totally demonizing those we disagreed with created President Trump.

He is my president because I am guilty of this hypocrisy, he is our president because he is who we deserve.

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

Refugees and Catholic Social Teaching

There has been a lot of discussion about the President’s recent executive order banning refugees from entering the United States. I hope to wade into this discussion as a student of Catholic Social Teaching and as someone trying to be obedient to the Church. I wish to concisely, yet comprehensively, lay out the relevant principles of Catholic Social Teaching and apply them to this particular situation. In other words, I wish to personally answer the question recently posed by Msgr. Charles Pope and invite you to to do the same: How Catholic is my stance on immigration? 

(As an aside, whenever I make the claim “the Church teaches X,” I will provide links to the relevant document. If a particular passage strikes you, please go and read into it further.)

Before I dive in, if you haven’t already, I would encourage you to read the actual executive order. In addition to that, here’s an excellent summary and analysis of the executive order. While this order does several things, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m concerned with three things in particular: the suspension of entry into the US for 90 days of all persons from seven Muslim majority countries (countries first named by the Obama administration as harboring terrorists), the 120 day suspension of refugee processing for nationals from any country, and the indefinite suspension of all refugees coming from Syria.

The Divine command to welcome the foreigner goes back all the way to Moses, “Cursed be anyone who deprives the resident alien, the orphan or the widow of justice!” (Dt 27:19). Jesus not only reaffirmed this command, but he also raised the bar and made it clear that even our eternal destiny is hinged on how we treat the stranger. In Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he…will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me…Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome…Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me. And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life (Matt 25:31-46).

Christ the King: John Stephen Dwyer [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Following Scripture, the Church definitively teaches that people have the right to emigrate. Pope Saint John XXIII articulated this teaching in his encyclical Pacem in Terris, in which he said, “When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there” (paragraph 25). Later in that encyclical, specifically referring to refugees this time, the saint said, “among man’s personal rights we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents.” He continues, “It is therefore the duty of State officials to accept such immigrants and—so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood, permits—to further the aims of those who may wish to become members of a new society” (paragraph 106).

The catechism takes up this teaching and articulates the right to emigrate this way:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (paragraph 2241).

However, while it’s clear that there is a right to emigrate, this right, like any right, is not absolute. Rights, even intrinsic rights,  are tempered by duties. The teachings quoted above detail three things that limit the right of a person to emigrate: 1) the reasons why a person is emigrating; 2) the duties the immigrant owes their adoptive country; and 3) the state’s obligation to the common good of its citizens. I’m going to address each of these in turn and apply them to the recent refugee ban.

First, as Saint John XXIII stated, “When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.” Do refugees coming from the countries listed in the executive order have “just reasons” for emigrating? Pope Saint John Paul II gives a short, non-exhaustive, list of reasons why someone may be forced to emigrate, “civil conflicts, wars, the system of government, unjust distribution of economic resources, inconsistent agricultural policies, irrational industrialization and rampant corruption” (paragraph 2). It is obvious that refugees seeking asylum in the US, particularly those coming from Syria, face at least one, if not several, of these hardships.

The next duty that tempers the right to emigrate is the obligation the migrant has to their adoptive country. As the catechism said, “Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” The major concern, the one named in the title of the executive order, regarding refugees respecting our laws is obviously terrorism. However, this concern is largely without merit. The Cato Institute found that:

From 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 refugees have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all in the 1970s.  Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion.

Finally, the third restriction on the right to emigrate is the state’s obligation to protect its own citizens. The catechism says, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” Again, the major concern here is the risk of allowing a terrorist to enter our country. However, this concern is largely overblown. Refugees are vetted more rigorously than anyone else entering the United States, and, as I said above, this process is clearly working because the chance of an American being killed by a refugee terrorist is 1 in 3.6 billion.

However, that does not mean that there is no risk or concern. In October 2015, FBI Director Comey, before the House Homeland Security Committee, said, “We can only query against that which we have collected…If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home but we are not going to — there will be nothing show up because we have no record on that person.” However, a potential risk is very different from an imminent threat, and this is an important distinction to make when human lives hang in the balance. As Archbishop Gomez put it, “Halting admissions of refugees for 90 or 120 days may not seem like a long time. But for a family fleeing a war-torn nation, or the violence of drug cartels, or warlords who force even children into armies — this could mean the difference between life and death.” We can pose the question this way, is it more likely for an American to be killed by a refugee terrorist, or is it dramatically more likely for an innocent refugee to die because the US refused to let them enter our country?

So where do we go from here? What is the Catholic stance on this executive order? Catholic Social Teaching seeks to balance the right of persons to emigrate with the duty of a nation to protect itself. Does this executive order maintain that balance or is it a grave injustice toward refugees?

I think that the most reasonable position for a Catholic to take on this issue is to see the refugee ban as a moral tragedy. Because those fleeing war and poverty have the right to be here, and because there is no evidence that our refugee vetting process puts American lives in imminent danger, we must side with those seeking asylum. And I am not alone in coming to this conclusion; numerous American bishops have spoken out in support of refugees and many of them oppose this executive order. I’ve listed several of those statements below.

These statements from our bishops truly deserve to be seriously considered and given their due weight by any Catholic seeking to form their conscience on this issue. I encourage you to read them and take them to heart as they are our “authentic teachers and instructors of the faith” (Code of Canon Law, 753).  

I urge you again to ask the question posed at the beginning of the article: How Catholic is my stance on immigration?

Cardinal DiNardo (President of the USCCB) and Archbishop Gomez (Vice President of the USCCB)
Bishop Vasquez, (USCCB Chair On Migration) has two statements here and here
Cardinal Cupich
Cardinal Dolan
Cardinal Wuerl
Archbishop Chaput
Archbishop Gomez
Archbishop Lori, Bishop Rozanski, and Bishop Cantú
Archbishop Vigneron
Bishop Bambera
Bishop Bradley
Bishop McElroy

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.

Schools of Unconditional Love

My wife, Kristina, and I were blessed to be able to attend the World Meeting of Families conference back in 2015. The wonderful Professor Helen Alvaré gave one of the keynote talks during that week that really struck me.

Professor Alvaré was talking about how the love we give and receive within the family grows and overflows into the wider world. Specifically, she spoke on how a parent’s unconditional love for their child “organically and divinely” grows into the unconditional love of strangers. She said:

Eventually, if you have asked God day in and day out to work His will with you, you begin to see every child as if they could be your child…You won’t be able to look at the homeless, the sick, the depressed, the fatherless, without remembering how they are someone’s child or sibling or mother and then converting that co-suffering converting your maternal and paternal selves into action.

This comment resonated with me at the time and still resonates with me now.

Just a few weeks before this conference started, there was a picture of a little boy that was circulating online. The boy was three years old in this picture, just a little older than Simon, my eldest son. In the picture he was lying down with his knees tucked under him, his arms off to his sides, and his head full of light brown hair turned sideways. It looked just like Simon when he slept.

Except this little boy wasn’t sleeping in this picture, he was lying on a Mediterranean beach after drowning in the Aegean Sea. His name was Aylan Kurdi, and his family were refugees fleeing Syria.

I remember staring at this picture when it came across my newsfeed and it totally captivated me. This little boy reminded me so much of Simon. I realized at that moment that this little boy, Aylan, was loved by somebody as much as I love my own son. Aylan smiled and laughed and cried and played like my own son. Aylan drowned in the Aegean Sea along with his brother and mother because his dad wasn’t able to hold onto them. I just sat in front of my computer and cried.

 

Aylan Kurdi – Daily Mail, “Daddy, please don’t die”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223447/Daddy-don-t-die-Drowned-Aylan-Kurdi-s-tragic-words.html

We’re supposed to see Christ in others, because all of us bear the image of God. We are especially supposed to see Christ in the poor and the hungry and the homeless and the refugee because He said, “Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me.”

But that’s really hard to do.

I mean, Saint Mother Teresa saw Jesus in the poor, but she’s a saint! The best I can muster up when I see a beggar is pity…not the love and respect due to our Lord. Yet God is so wise. He knows that it’s hard for us to see His image in the stranger, so He gave us our families to be training grounds for unconditional love. He lets us first see every child as if they could be our child so that we may eventually learn to love the outcast like we love our own children. He gave us our family as a school of love.

As a Christian, I must resist looking at the poor, the homeless, and the refugee as “people,” as an abstract group or “issue.” I must see every human person for the unique and valuable individual that he or she is. I must see the poor as I would see my own family. I must love the homeless as I would my own family. I must treat the refugee as if they were my own family.

As Professor Alvaré put it, “We start with family and end with strangers in need whose only link is our common humanity.” Go love your family, and let that love overflow into the whole world.

Paul Fahey is a husband, father, and professional lay person. He is a student of Theology, History, and Catholic Studies. If you like what he has to say, check out his other articles or follow him on Facebook.