Papal Authority vs. Papal Infallibility

There is a tendency in the modern Catholic world to equate the ideas of Papal Authority with Papal Infallibility. For example, many believe, or at least act as if, every action, pronouncement, and document issued by the Holy See is sealed with infallibility, whereas in reality many papal pronouncements are merely the Pope's exercising of his legitimate authority. In this series of blog entries, I will attempt to analyze the interplay between papal authority and papal infallibility.

The Universal Authority of the Pope of Rome

There is really no question that the Pope of Rome has universal authority over the entire Catholic Church. This has been universally recognized for so long that it really does not deserve to be discussed as it would be like once again proving that gravity exists.

The best way to show the long-accepted universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is to examine early Church writings, including the Gospels themselves and the Acts of the Apostles, as well as the early correspondence between the various episcopal sees. It is abundantly clear that the early Church recognized a hierarchy given by God in the form of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity. Moreover, it is clear that the hierarchy very quickly set about the idea of dividing geographical areas into jurisdictions for the particular apostles and bishops (this eventually began to parallel the Roman civil law in jurisdictional division).

Once the geographical divisions were set up, the inherent authority of the Roman Pontiff became more evident. With these divisions came territorial and theological disputes amond the bishops and patriarchs of other sees. It is clear from historical evidence that when there was a dispute, the bishops and patriarchs (even those in the East) appealed to the Apostolic See to settle disputes. Interestingly, there is really no dispute, even now, amongst the Orthodox East that the Holy Father, the Roman Pontiff has this authority (of course, given the schism, they are more likely to appeal to the so-called "Ecumenical Patriarch" for modern disputes). What the Orthodox dispute is whether the Apostolic See has the charism of infallibility (an issue that came to greater prominence and crystallization with the sua sponte inclusion of the filioque into the Symbol of Faith as proclaimed by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople).

The authority of the Holy Father also includes his teaching office, which involves propogating the faith and morals of the Catholic religion. So, the Holy Father "rules" the universal Church in matters of discipline in the same way the local ordinary does for the local Church. But, as is evident, the teaching office of the Roman Pontiff necessarily includes his discussion of the doctrines and dogmas of the universal Church: this is the intersection of authority and infallibility.

Miscarriage of Justice

Why THIS Battle?

Marc and I were having a discussion last night about the HHS rule and the bishops’ reaction to it. We both thought it interesting that the bishops, as well as a great many priests, did respond so vociferously—in some cases even stridently--to the rule.

Don’t get me wrong; the response is a welcome one, at least to those who actually profess and seek to follow the Catholic faith. My only regret is that we’ve had to wait for so long to see this kind of strong stance from the leaders of the Church in America, and my only fear is that they’ll fold if things go south.

My question, however, is why the bishops have chosen this as a battleground. For nearly half a century, America’s clergy, by and large, have been uninterested in preaching on and attempting to “enforce,” if you will, the Church’s ancient teaching on the evils of contraception. They’ve let their parishioners have their own way in this, in flagrant disregard of Humanae Vitae and two thousand years of unbroken condemnation of contraception as perverting the whole meaning of sex. Now, suddenly, they’ve seized on it—an issue that they themselves have done all they can to make a lost cause—as the rallying point against the rising tide of the world. The $64,000 question is: Why? Why this issue, and why now?

Marc believes that the key is the abortion angle—the fact that the insurance plans in question will cover abortifacients and contraceptives with an abortifacient effect. (Actually, the IUD, the minipill, implants, and one mechanism of the combination pill are better described as contragestives, in that they don’t prevent conception but implantation/gestation. Since life begins at conception, and these methods then terminate that life, their moral status is the same as abortion.) Specifically, Marc states that since the bishops have continued to have at least some visible concern about abortion, at least when compared for their utter lack of concern about birth control, it’s the abortifacient aspect of the HHS rule that has drawn their attention here, and the birth control issue is merely incidental.

I’m not entirely sure of that, especially when I remember the canonization—excuse me, the funeral—of TedKennedy. I’ve long maintained that the two groups that are most responsible for the current availability of abortion in America, to the tune of 3000 or 4000 per day, are the Republican Party and the Catholic bishops.

My cynical thought is to follow the money, but it doesn’t seem to be leading me anywhere. In other words, if churches would see a decline in what goes into the collection plates as a result of preaching on a particular issue, then bishops and priests tend to steer clear of that issue. The problem here is that I think that the bishops risk alienating Catholics with this sudden reversion to preaching about the evils of birth control—that it’s their opposition, here, not their continued silence, that risks reducing church revenues. Which brings us back to the original question: why have they chosen now to agitate, when they’ve been content to let Catholics contracept to their hearts’ content for a half-century?

     Anyone?

     (Here's hoping Marc has got the comment function fixed--I really want some perspective on this one.)

And now, For Some Liturgical Levity . . .

This video shows us why the Tridentine Mass was a lot easier than the Novus Ordo . . . except, possibly, for asthmatics . . .

Comments Redux

I understand from speaking with one of our followers yesterday that there is still a problem with the commenting system. I have just attempted once more to tweak the system.

Hopefully, the comments will work now! If you have further problems, please email me (Marc). I believe all our current followers have my email address.

The Luminous Mysteries

At a gathering last night, during a discussion of the Rosary, I mentioned off hand that I do not pray the "Luminous Mysteries" in my daily prayer of the Rosary. One of those present responded that "[these mysteries] were good enough for Pope John Paul II." Since I did not have a chance to respond to that, I wanted to write this blog entry.

At the outset, let me say that I am not criticizing the person that asked me about this. I am also not criticizing anyone who chooses to include the Luminous Mysteries in their daily Rosary (as simply praying the Rosary is more important than how we pray it). However, I think that many people, particularly those who are trying to return to the Traditions of the Church, have not considered these sorts of innovations to be as pernicious as they are.

Let us begin by remembering how we received the Holy Rosary: Our Blessed Mother gave the Holy Rosary, including the three sets of mysteries - Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious - to St. Dominic. The Holy Rosary has divine origins. As such, it is more elevated than other pious devotions and practices. Therefore, it is not to be tampered with except by those who receive some additional revelation. This actually happened at Fatima, when our Blessed Mother gave the three children the Fatima Prayer, which is typically added after each Gloria Patri for of the five decades.

Apart from its divine origin, the Rosary has a practical aspect to it. The laity, unlike priests and religious, cannot be expected to participate fully in the prayer of the Divine Office, which includes weekly recitation of the 150 Psalms (or at least it did in the past - now there is a four week cycle and it is called The Liturgy of the Hours instead). Therefore, the Rosary includes 150 Ave Marias to parallel the 150 Psalms [NB: The Rosary is considered to be the praying of all three sets of Mysteries at once for a total of 150 Aves. We generally accept (and the Church concedes) that the daily recitation includes praying 50 Aves.]

Moreover, the Church has traditionally included a propsed cycle for the praying of the Mysteries. The cycle is Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious - Christ's early life, death, and resurrection. So, we have Monday - Joyful, Tuesday - Sorrowful, Wednesday - Glorious, Thursday - Joyful, Friday - Sorrowful, Saturday - Glorious. On Sundays, traditionally, the Mysteries are set according to the season. So, during Lent we pray the Sorrowful, during Easter and the time after Pentecost the Glorious, during Advent and the time after Epiphany the Joyful.

So, there are several reasons for the exclusion of the Luminous Mysteries: they are not of divine origin, as is the rest of the Rosary; they throw off the number of Aves, which disrupts the continuity with the weekly Psalter; and they change the tempo of the Mysteries through the week, as their inclusion on Thursday changes the arrangement of the other Mysteries.

Are the Luminous Mysteries bad? Of course not! We should definitely consider and meditate upon the Baptism of the Lord, the first miracle at Cana, the Proclamation of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Transfiguration, and the Institution of the Holy Eucharist. Assuredly, these mysteries were set out by Pope Bl. John Paul II, which is a compelling argument for their inclusion. However, for those seeking to return to the Traditions of the Church, we could consider a devotional practice that is influenced by the traditional devotional practice of those who came before.

As I said at the outset, there is nothing wrong with praying the Luminous Mysteries, just as there is nothing wrong with excluding them for the reasons set out above. As for me, I will not include them, but I will from time to time meditate on these important events in the life of our Lord.

The Prerogative of the Universal Pontiff and Vatican II

In his work "The Orthodox Eastern Churches", Fr. Adrian Forescue (+1923) examines the relationship between the Holy Father, the Pope of Rome, and Ecumenical Councils. In the context of the book, he is discussing the Pope's universal jurisdiction over the Church by showing that the Holy Father, even in the first seven ecumenical councils, exercised the prerogatives particular to his office as universal Pontiff (as opposed to simply Patriarch of the West).

Fr. Fortescue (who also wrote a book called "The Roman Rite", which is the pinnacle of liturgical history of the Roman Rite, "the most venerable in all Christendom" [NB: He was talking about the Tridentine Mass]) shows that all Catholics (both East and West) have believed from the very beginning that the Pope alone has the right to (1) summon a general council, (2) preside at the council when summoned, and (3) confirm or reject the council's decrees. Moreover, he points out, by citation to the history of the first councils of the Church, that the Holy Father need not have actually called the council or presided at the council if he later ascents to the council's teaching (the Pope's confirmation heals whatever irregularities may have been present in the calling of the council).

Note that the second and fifth council's were not called by the Pope, but their decrees later confirmed. Note also that particular decrees of the first seven councils were rejected by the Pope, despite being approved by hundreds of bishops. Finally, note that the number of bishops participating in the council has no effect regarding its status as ecumenical. In fact, the Eastern Church, in the time leading to the mutual excommunications in the early 11th Century, held councils where hundreds of bishops were present and decrees were issued. These councils were not ecumenical for the reasons set forth above regarding the Pope's prerogative. (The fact that the bishops in attendance were all from the East also makes no difference as the bishops of the East were predominant at most, if not all, of the early Church councils -- many of the great heresies of the early Church arose in the East, therefore, the bishops of the East met to counter their own).

The history of the early Church councils is fascinating, particularly in light of current events in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It is important to note that there is no one council of predominance in the Church. Two councils sought to analyze essentially all the teachings of the Church: the Council of Trent, which stated the teaching and ordered the issuance of a catechism, and the Second Vatican Council.

But, what exactly did the Second Vatican Council do? In light of the above regarding the prerogative of the Holy Father in the context of ecumenical councils, let's review what Pope Paul VI, who was pope when the council closed, has to say about Vatican II:

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

I will leave my conclusions about this to myself, particularly as I am continuing to study the Second Vatican Council in light of the other councils of the Church. This is a task that I have not seen anyone else undertake (although I am sure someone has done so). I ask that if anyone reading knows of a book on this subject, please leave the name in the comments as I would really like to read someone else's findings on this subject.

Irony

Via Southern Orders blog.

Also, Obama is also trying (as I believe he has in the past while president) to mobilize churches as campaign platforms for him, as revealed here. So an Obama administration pattern of subjecting religious to civil authority seems to be emerging.

The Focus of Lent

The season of Lent is pentitential in nature in order to prepare for the upcoming season of Easter in which we celebrate the Glorious Resurrection of the Lord. During this time, we must be mindful that we are rending not our garments, but our very hearts in reparation for our sins. We deprive our bodies of nourishment and empty ourselves in order to teach ourselves humility. When we are hungriest, we begin to realize we are not self-sufficient. Instead, we are completely reliant on God to continue to lovingly care for us and sustain us.

What is the deeper meaning of this exercise, though? Why must we come to recognize that we are completely dependent on God? We need to internalize the idea that God, our loving Father, is constantly thinking of us and that this very thought is what keeps us in existence. When we are hungry and humble, we can more easily experience God's active thought sustaining our existence.

We empty ourselves during Lent - of food, of attachments, of the world - in order to allow Christ to fill us. We seek to become less so that He may become more. We rend our hearts so that he may mend them with the Holy and Life-giving Spirit. Lent is our proving ground where we learn the self-control that allows us to be mindful that Christ is waiting for us to grow in holiness with His Divine Assistance. After all, Christ our God became man so that man could become like God. In a certain sense, in order to cooperate with the grace that seeks to divinize us, we must empty out the humanity that humanizes us - just as Christ emptied himself on the Cross (a process that begins in some ways with his forty days of fasting in the desert). We empty our attachments to the world and fill ourselves again with attachment to Christ - fasting does the emptying, additional or more dedicated prayer does the filling.

Just as our God subjected himself to temptation, we are subjected to temptation. In this season, we are likely to be subject to the temptation of laziness and ease of existence. Although this is a constant temptation regardless of the liturgical season, it is more prevalent during Lent when we are making a concerted effort at self-denial. With the clearer assistance of grace brought about by fasting, we must recognize that we are not self-sufficient in fighting these temptations, constantly turning to our Lord and His Blessed Mother, as well as our Guardian Angel, to assist us in overcoming temptations brought not by demons but by ourselves.

Most of all, we must be mindful that, although we now rend our hearts and mortify our bodies, our Lord has already been raised and sits in Glory at the right hand of God the Father. Lent, then, teaches us to cleanse ourselves and make ready for Easter with the knowledge that Easter has already occurred for Christ - we need only to grow in humility, trust, and repentence in order to prepare for our own resurrection.

About commenting to My Posts

     I've been having some trouble managing the comments--as in I'm not getting any from registered readers, but anonymously sent ones seem to be getting through, at least sometimes. I've tinkered some more with the settings to see if it will help, but if you don't get the "Your comment has been submitted" message at the top of your page, then I won't receive it. If you can't send one while logged in, try logging out and sending it anonymously.
     If this still doesn't work, I'll turn off comment moderation. But in that case--and in fact even for moderated comments--please keep in mind something before you comment. While I believe in the marketplace of ideas (I've taught college-level courses on First Amendment, after all), I didn't establish this bog to have people tell me that I'm wrong. (Constructive correction of details, yes; viewpoint, no). Elaboration, correction of minor matters, and constructive, helpful criticism are welcome. Challenges to my opinion are not.
     Despite my intemperate remarks on this blog, I'm not close-minded. In the right forum, when I'm engaged in a non-adversarial mutual search for the truth with someone else, you would likely be amazed at how much I'm willing to put on the table, up to and including the existence of God, the truth of the Catholic faith, and the evil of abortion (at least arguendo).  But this blog isn't that forum. So play nice, please.
   Also, like an imprimatur, my approval of comments doesn't necessarily indicate that I agree with the opinions expressed therein. The comment authors are responsible for their own comments.

Obama: A modern-day Emperor Julian the Apostate

I’ve been doing a little research on Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. Viewing Christians as harmful to Roman society and national security, during his short time as emperor (361-63) he mounted a systematic attack on Christianity in an attempt to restore the pagan religious of the empire. Here is a summary of his campaign by two professors at Emory. The italics are mine.

Soon, Julian became very hostile to Christianity, developing a three-fold strategy effectively to disenfranchise Christians. First, he used legislation to cut off Christians from contact with the mainstream community. Next, he attempted to establish a pagan church structure to rival that of Christianity. Finally, he mounted a philosophical assault on Christianity, trying to show that its belief system was novel and harmful, and also to portray Christians as apostates from Judaism, a much older, more established, and more accepted religion. There is evidence of Julian's attempt to legally disenfranchise Christians both by taking away any special exemptions that they could claim due to their religious beliefs and by prosecuting them for actively advocating their beliefs. A law of the Theodosian Code prohibits decurions from avoiding their compulsory duties on the grounds that they are Christian, and Ammianus spoke of legislation barring Christians from teaching rhetoric and grammar.

Given that progressive collectivism has long advocated and worked to establish a compulsory social welfare system—redistributionist, supported by taxation, and enforeced by the authority of the state—can we not say that this welfare state is a “structure to rival Christianity?”

Next, aren’t adherents of the HHS rule and so-called compromise (including so-called Catholics like Pelosi et al.) arguing that the Catholic “belief system” is “harmful” in allegedly failing to see to women’s health needs (i.e., free contraceptives and abortifacients)?

Thirdly, in refusing to provide any religious waiver and discounting all First Amendment arguments that the HHS rule violates free exercise and compels speech, doesn’t the administration “tak[e] away any special exemptions that [Catholics can] claim due to their religious beliefs and . . .  prosecut[e] them for actively advocating their beliefs?” Doesn’t the HHS rule “prohibit[ Catholics] from avoiding their compulsory duties on the grounds that they are Christian?”

As for the oft-repeated secular and administration observations that “98% of Catholics use birth control,” as well as Pelosi claiming to stand with her fellow Catholics against the bishops: this attempt by the administration, those sympathetic to it, and even so-called Catholics to foment dissent within the Church itself is also a tactic that Julian used. Here is a passage from a contemporary of Julian, the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Again, the italics are mine.

Although Julian from the earliest days of his childhood had been more inclined towards the worship of the pagan gods, and as he gradually grew up burned with longing to practise it, yet because of his many reasons for anxiety he observed certain of its rites with the greatest possible secrecy.  But when his fears were ended, and he saw that the time had come when he could do as he wished, he revealed the secrets of his heart and by plain and formal decrees ordered the temples to be opened, victims brought to the altars, and the worship of the gods restored. And in order to add to the effectiveness of these ordinances, he summoned to the palace the bishops of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, [i.e., including Arians and other heretical bishops] and the people, who were also at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs.  On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.

So, these divide and conquer tactics currently being used by secular authorities to interfere in Church governance and thus neutralize Catholic power go back almost to the days of the martyrs. Given all this, is it unreasonable to say that the Obama administration and its fellow travelers are not deliberately trying to break the power of the Church?

Finally, note Julian’s fear of Christian charity, for fear that it will detract from his own paternalistic activities. Here he is in his own words (my italics):

We must pay especial attention to this point, and  by this means effect a cure. For when it came  about that the poor were neglected and overlooked  by the priests, then I think the impious Galilaeans  observed this fact and devoted themselves to  philanthropy. And they have gained ascendancy in the worst of their deeds through the credit they win for such practices. For just as those who  entice children with a cake, and by throwing it to  them two or three times induce them to follow them, and then, when they are far away from their  friends cast them on board a ship and sell them as slaves, and that which for the moment seemed  sweet, proves to be bitter for all the rest of their  lives — by the same method, I say, the Galilaeans also begin with their so-called love-feast, or hospitality, or service of tables, — for they have many  ways of carrying it out and hence call it by many  names, — and the result is that they have led very  many into atheism.

     Of course, Julian thought Christians to be atheists. That isn't the problem that the world has with the Catholic Church. Quite the opposite, in fact. But the world very much does want the Church out of the adoption business, and now, it seems, out of the healthcare business as well, if it isn't going to do the will of the state in Catholic hospitals. In fact, the world would be very happy for the Church to just go away completely. What, after all, is the point of the HHS rule, if not to coerce Catholic institutions into acting no differently from secular ones?

On the Federal Government, Martyrdom, and the Bishops

A couple of excellent quotations attributed to Francis Cardinal George by Fr. Z:

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square."

That one may be apocryphal, but the next one is better documened, and it speaks very nicely to the problem of dissent by Pelosi, et al. and their "People's Catholic Church," as I am wont to derisively call it:

This is the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain.  What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have.  The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. 

For Catholics who find themselves attacked for their faith--attacked by their so-called fellow Catholics, which I have been more than once--this is a good quotation to remember, and in line with John 6:66-70. We can blame the past 50 years of American bishops (with exceptions, of couse) for this, too--because they have failed and refused to teach and defend the faith, now we, the orthodox laity, are put in that position of having to do so to so-called Catholics, faced by silence from the bishops and charges of bigotry and narrow-mindedness from so-called Catholics. Thanks a heap, Your Excellencies. In your groovy 1970s jargon, I just feel so affirmed and empowered by your ongoing and deafening silence, which allows me to twist in the breeze with the rest of the faithful remnant. I hope God is more merciful to you for your gross failures than he is likely to be to me for my strong words here.

On Lenten Sacrifice in East and West

The Catholic world of the 21st Century is vastly more individualized than the Catholic world of the past. In this inaugural post as a contributor to this Blog, I will analyze this proposition by way of reference the idea of Lenten sacrifices as they existed prior to the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, I will attempt to explain the concept of Lenten sacrifice as experienced in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which I am just beginning to study, but which fascinate me as an apparently much older version of Catholic Christianity that remains untarnished by the Protestant Revolt of the 16th Century.

Lent, which is attested to by St. Leo as having derived during Apostolic times (at least to some extent), is the greatest and longest penitential season in the Church year. In both West and East, it is the longest period of fasting in the Church year (although the purpose of this fasting has somewhat different purposes in the respective Churches).

Historically, that is before the Second Vatican Council, every Latin Rite Catholic able to do so (by age and physical condition) was obliged to fast and partially abstain every day during Lent, except for Sundays (which do not count as Lenten fast days). So, for each day of Lent, every Latin Rite Catholic would eat one large meal, which could include meat (except on Fridays and Saturdays), and two smaller meals, which did not include meat and did not equal the larger meal. Therefore, no one would have been subjected to the endless questions about "what you gave up for Lent" as everyone gave up food (you know, because it's a fast and all). Is there a greater solidarity for Catholic people than everyone being quite hungry as a large group?

As Latin Catholics are wont to do, this fasting was handled in a juridical manner. That is, it was prescribed as the rule under penalty of sin. This is similar to modern fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, as well as abstention on Fridays during Lent, where the breaking of the fast or failure to abstain is mortally sinful. Compare this juridical pronouncement to the Eastern Churches "suggested" fast and abstinence, which is much more severe, yet does not bind under penalty of sin. As is typical of the East, the goal is set and people are expected to strive toward it instead of striving to avoid a juridical pronouncement. Different incentives work for different people and neither is inherently better than the other - which is why the Church can be universal (but that is a topic for another day).

Prior to this intense period of fasting, Latin Catholic would have been prepared through the three week liturgical season called Septuagessima. This was a period of minor fasting in preparation for the much more rigorous fasting to come. There was no prescribed fast or abtsention during this period (other than the standard Friday abstention). However, it was recognized as a time of progressive denial of self so the fast of Lent wouldn't be such a shock. We shall see how this is experienced similarly in the Eastern Churches.

Let us progress to discuss Lenten fasting in the Eastern Churches (namely, the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox). I will attempt to distill information that can be difficult to synthesize (as I am not an Eastern Rite Catholic, I do not have a background in their practice). This is also a difficult task as the East does not feel the necessity to clearly spell out a prescription for every person as each person is to coordinate with their parish priest to determine their particular praxis.

At the outset, we much point out that Great Lent in the Eastern Churches does not begin on Ash Wednesday (as there is no Ash Wednesday in the Eastern Church). Instead, Lent begins on a Monday. During Great Lent, the faithful avoid meat, fish (with backbone), dairy products, eggs, olive oil, and wine/alcohol. Moreover, during particular days (Wednesday and Friday), the faithful do not eat from midnight to noon and then only take one meal per day. During the first week of Lent and during Holy Week, the faithful fast for longer periods of time, going up to two days without taking food. If this seems like a very difficult task, we must keep in mind that this is the most one is possibly expected to do, but not everyone is expected to do so under pain of sin. Moreover, this rule developed out of monastic habits and yet the faithful are still thought to be capable of reaching these heights!

As in the pre-Vatican II Western Church, there is a period of build-up before this great fast. In the weeks preceding Great Lent, the faithful are expected to first give up all meat products, then to give up all dairy and egg products. This leads to the great fast where the number of meals is limited.

This fasting, both Western and Eastern, may sound odd (and somewhat Pelagian) to those coming from a Protestant tradition. However, the Church has always called on the faithful to fast. Traditionally, both "lungs" of the Church have called for fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year. Interestingly, the Latin practice of fasting on Saturdays throughout the year was one of many factors that separated the East and West and culminated in the Great Schism in the 11th Century.

In our day where self-limitation is frowned upon, the Latin Church has not called on its people to fast as she has historically done. Instead, we Latins may now substitute whatever we please as our Lenten sacrifice (just as we may substitute some other act of penance on Fridays throughout the year). The Church presumably means to eradicate some of the overly Pelagian aspects of the Lenten fast by asking the faithful to prescribe their own "fast" and have that chosen "fast" not bind under pain of sin. Of course, the Church could simply call upon her shepherds to explain to the people the purpose of the fast and self-denial and caution against the potential for boasting and self-reliance that comes with the fast. After all, we are imitating our Blessed Lord's fasting in the desert where we learn we are not to rely on ourselves or bread, but on Christ Himself, the Word of God.

My analysis then is that many clerics in Western Church continue to engage in the most pernicious sort of clericalism that has become so commonplace since the Second Vatican Council. That is, they insist that the laity are quite incapable of understanding even the most simple of theological or spiritual propositions. So, instead of being asked to raise ourselves (or more correctly cooperating with the Holy Trinity as grace raises us up) to another level of spirituality (that all encompassing notion of theosis found in the East), we are once more pandered to and asked to do very little because little is expected of us. This is the opposite of what Lumen Gentium (the greatest of the Vatican II documents) says about the call of the laity in the modern world.

And Now for Something Completely Different . . .

This post will be a break from my attack on a) the Obama administration and the secular government for trying to co-opt or destroy the Catholic Church and b) Catholic bishops for having done such a miserable job of teaching and defending the faith for the last 50 years (including 2012). Instead, I’m going to talk about video gaming.

I’ve been an on-line gamer since a little before graduate school, i.e., mid-1980s. I bet you didn’t even know there were online games in the 1980s, right? But there were. My MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game) for the last five years or so has been City of Heroes, to which I was introduced by one of my parish priests (There! A Catholic connection!) who’s also a gamer. (In fact, when at a daily Mass he would occasionally opt for a moment of silence instead of a homily, I would sometimes harbor the unworthy thought that he might have stayed up too late gaming the night before.)

At any rate, I’m about the most serious gamer that I know. The frightening thing is that there are gamers out there who make me look like someone who doesn’t even know how to operate a computer. I shudder to think of the time, money, and emotional resources that these people must put into their gaming. I just found an example, in fact, that has prompted this blog entry.

Three or four years ago I briefly played EVE Online, an MMORPG that’s about building empires in space. It’s beyond doubt the most elaborate MMORPG there is, or certainly the most elaborate one I’ve ever heard of. You pilot a starship around the galaxy doing a number of things: mining, trading, building and selling ships and the equipment for them, hunting pirates (or being a pirate), being a bounty hunter, and occasionally getting in fights or even fleet battles, the latter sometimes involving literally hundreds of people. The last time I checked, there were about five thousand (yes, five THOUSAND) different solar systems in the game, each one with a unique look as far as I could tell (I doubt that anyone has ever visited all of them). And each system, each starship, each space station, is absolute eye candy, and the major reason why I played. It was glorious just to fly around looking at stuff. (You can get an idea of what it looks lile from the game's website.)

EVE’s in-game economy is amazingly intricate (the game client has a built-in calculator, if that gives you any idea), and it sometimes takes months or years to amass a sizeable amount of in-game money, so it’s a huge time investment. It’s also one of the most cut-throat games I’ve ever encountered. Imagine laboring for months of real-life time to afford a mining ship, only to have some suicidal idiot in England or Iceland decide to kami-kaze into it just for giggles. That’s the main reason I quit playing the game.

But just to show you how serious these players are, take a look at the following. In EVE, corporations are groups of players who associate for various reasons, anything from running a mining/trading empire to serving as a group of interstellar pirates or Mafiosi. What we have here is a list of membership requirements of a corporation that I just randomly picked out of a hat. There’s a lot of lingo in it, but despite this I hope you get the general idea:

Requirements for applicants:

• No trial accounts unless you are a RL friend of an established member of this corp.

• You Have Minimum 10 Million Skill Points in PvP Relevant Skills. You will be asked for a limited API to verify you have these skills.

• You are a team player that likes good fun and a relaxed atmosphere

• You are mature and have level headed attitude whatever your age.

• You are looking for a team of experienced PvPers to fly with and/or learn from

• You have TeamSpeak, a Mic, and use it

• You like to participate in Roam's and CTAs

• You own and regularly fly T2 combat ships or T2 fitted T1 combat ships

• You are self-sufficient and are not looking for handouts

• You don’t sit around waiting for something to happen, you look for the action and get involved.

• You avoid senseless losses. We do not tolerate 'stupid losses'. If you don't know what this means, you might not fit in with us.

• As a corp we expect participation when your online. If your a PvPer you had best be in a fleet when there is one up. You had better be making kills and showing off your skills.

• Applicants to the corp need to have a proven track record in pvp. Please have links to killboards ready and API ready for recruitment officers to review. Under certain circumstances we may consider people with lower sp, who demonstrate qualities which we deem could be used to good effect in our corp.

• While everyone helps each other in [this corporation] and will not see other members without ships etc to fight with, you will be required to be self sufficient, joining the corp means you want to PvP and have the means to fund this.

• We are an 0.0 based corp and expect all members to be based from wherever the corp is operating from at any given time, this is a must unless you are specifically doing something for the corp in empire, obviously we all have to go to empire sometimes to shop/make money etc, but the majority of your time in game will be spent in 0.0 participating in any corp/alliance ops.

Imagine—membership requirements for a group in a game, for Pete’s sake. And not just requirements—you have to submit references to the corporation’s recruitment officers (i.e., those things about API and killboards).

The thing that made me want to post this is that this corporation bills itself as “a casual corporation” with “a relaxed atmosphere.” If that’s the case, can you imagine what getting into a hardcore corporation, and staying in it, must be like? Why would anyone want to do that for a game when that’s what people have to deal with in real life? I game to get away from this kind of stuff, not to do it.

Simply amazing.

Of Baptists, Montanists, and Nancy Pelosi

In a previous post I discussed (and dissed) a hypothetical thing that I sarcastically called “The People’s Catholic Church.” I conjectured that modernist, dissenting Catholics who refuse to obey their bishops and who reject Church doctrine, yet continue to claim that they’re Catholic (namely, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Biden, etc.)  must therefore think that Catholicism is something different from the faith as handed on by the successors to the apostles. You can read the whole post here, but if you want my one-word summary of “The People’s Catholic Church,” here it is: “Garbage.”

In that post, I made the following statement: “This idea of cutting out all the intervening stuff in order to get back to the REAL Church, well, there’s a name for people who believe that: “Baptists.” (Not slamming my Baptist friends here. If you want to be Baptist, fine, be the best Baptists you can. I hope and expect for a great many Baptists to go to heaven, while I fear for the souls of a great many Catholics. My qualm here is with Baptists who insist on passing themselves off as Roman Catholics, because I think they’re intellectual frauds who are misleading people by their fraudulence.)”

Since I know of at least one Baptist who (I hope) is reading my blog, I’ve been ruminating over that statement for the last day or two, and I’ve decided that it’s possible that that statement could be taken the wrong way, doing a disservice to Baptists and being entirely too complimentary to Pelosi et al. (I thought about re-casting my argument, likening Pelosi et al. to Montanism, but I then decided that that that would be unfair even to Montanists.)  So there’s nothing to do for it but to elaborate on my previous statement about Baptists in this post.

Despite all of the differences between Catholics and Protestants—everything from the Real Presence and Mary on the one hand to incense and music on the other—there’s only one truly crucial difference, because from this one point all of the other differences come. Protestants believe that the Catholic Church added things to the faith handed down from the apostles, thus screwing that faith up. Catholics believe that Protestants took away things from the faith handed down from the apostles, thus screwing that faith up. (It follows that in the eyes of each tradition, the other is heretical.)

Beyond this, it’s hard to make a general statement about what Protestants believe, because Protestantism is so fragmented and those beliefs are so varied. I imagine the only thing that all Protestants at least theoretically agree on is that the Catholic Church has officially taught doctrinal error. The pronouncements of its leaders, therefore, cannot and must not be accepted because they have been shown to be both actually erroneous and capable of error.

When I put it this way, you can see why I likened Pelosi et al. to Protestants (particularly, Baptists, though I know that some Baptists wouldn’t describe themselves as Protestants). The commonality between Pelosi et al. and Protestants—and the point of my earlier statement—is the argument/belief that leaders of the Catholic Church are wrong when it comes to the doctrines they teach (in the case of Pelosi et al., the doctrines in question, among others, relate to birth control and abortion). The reason I chose Baptists is because they have no apostolic structure, unlike Episcopalians and Methodists; they have no doctrinal statements of faith such as Presbyterians; and they’re a Protestant tradition that I understand relatively well, compared to, say, Pentecostalism.

But here’s the disservice, or at least the disservice that some Baptists might perceive, in the parallel that I drew between Baptists and Pelosi et al. In the case of Baptists—at least serious Baptists, ones who aren’t casual about their faith in the same way so many Catholics are casual about theirs—they are genuinely trying to adhere to what they perceive is the Christian faith as handed down by the apostles. (Catholics disagree that they’re getting it right, but that’s at least what they’re trying to do.) But Pelosi et al. don’t seem at all to me to be doing that, and this is how they differ from serious Baptists, and even from Montanists. Rather, Pelosi et al. seem to be opportunists who use Christianity (when they mention it at all) to further their own agendas, which are shaped by influences that are largely secular (as in worldly, non-Christian), not really caring what the apostles taught except when that teaching can be used to further their own program.

Now, I can’t prove that Pelosi et al. are actually doing this. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose that they want peace, justice, and truth to prevail, which genuine Christians probably want as well. At any rate I will not presume that I know the state of Nancy Pelosi’s soul, because only she and God know that. We are not ever to judge the state of someone’s soul, because we aren’t God. We can and must, however, judge someone’s actions, and what I do know is that if Pelosi believes that killing an unborn child who has neither actual nor legal remedy nor defense is just, then her understanding of Christianity—if that’s where she’s coming from at all--is terribly perverted and sick. In a word, it’s wrong.

I won’t here rehash all of the voluminous pro-life arguments, which appeal from everything from the Natural Law to 2000 years of Christian teaching. If you want two of the best sources, I would refer you to the Protestant Randy Alcorn’s Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments as well as to the Catholic Peter Kreeft’s The Unaborted Socrates. And to those Christians among you who think that you’re doing an unborn child a favor by killing him because he’s got Downs’ Syndrome or would be a crack baby or would be damaged by the poverty or other circumstances he’d be born into, I’ll 1) accuse you of sinning against the virtue of hope, 2) refer you to a phrase that I’ll leave you to look up: Lebensunwertes Leben; and, when you get teed off with me for doing those two things, I’ll 3) quote you both Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy, who both note that tenderness and sentiment lead to the gas chamber. I’ll then invite you to take a good, hard look at your views on mercy killing (and that’s the most charitable way of putting it) in light of your professed Christianity.

    So, at any rate, Baptists, by definition, take the same jaundiced view of Episcopal authority that Pelosi et al. do. In that regard I stand by my statement, and it’s in that context that you should understand it. But are Pelosi et al. Christian in the way that serious Baptists are? Not that I can tell.

An Explanation of "Conscience," and the Freedom and Limits Thereof

During the HHS crisis, a lot of people, including a lot of bishops, are speaking in terms of the rule violating freedom of conscience. Patrick J. Deneen has made a good argument here that by relying on freedom of conscience, the Church has been lured onto enemy ground. I’m not sure I entirely agree, especially when one understands the real definition of conscience, which is most assuredly not just doing what you feel like doing or want to do, as a type of self-indulgence. Peter Kreeft explains it very well here: 

The modern meaning tends to indicate a mere feeling that I did something wrong or am about to do something wrong. The traditional meaning in Catholic theology is the knowledge of what is right and wrong: intellect applied to morality. The meaning of conscience in the argument is knowledge and not just a feeling; but it is intuitive knowledge rather than rational or analytical knowledge, and it is first of all the knowledge that I must always do right and never wrong, the knowledge of my absolute obligation to goodness, all goodness: justice and charity and virtue and holiness; only in the second place is it the knowledge of which things are right and which things are wrong. This second-place knowledge is a knowledge of moral facts, while the first-place knowledge is a knowledge of my personal moral obligation, a knowledge of the moral law itself and its binding authority over my life. That knowledge forms the basis for the argument from conscience.

Douglas McManaman explains here why conscience isn’t the ultimate source of morality, but only a way in which we know the objective moral truth:

[T]o put it bluntly, conscience is not the final arbiter of what is morally right, nor has the Church ever taught that it is.  In its truest sense, conscience is the intellectual apprehension of the Divine Law.  For this reason, Divine Law is primary.  

In his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Newman quotes Cardinal Gousset, who writes:  "The Divine Law is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience."  

Essentially, conscience is one's best judgment, in a given situation, on what here and now is to be done as good, or to be avoided as evil.  Because conscience is one's best judgment, hic et nunc, a person has a duty to obey it.  The Fourth Lateran Council says: "He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.”

It is also extremely important to note that the properly-formed conscience (since sometimes consciences can be in error) will never lead someone to dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium. To put it another way, if someone appeals to his conscience to say the Church is doctrinally in error (say, on birth control), then his conscience is in error and leads him away from the Church, not to a purer and superior form of Catholicism. To put this another way, a Nancy Pelosi or a Kathleen Sebelius is not more Catholic than the pope; she is less Catholic than the pope, despite—in fact, because of—her appeals to conscience. Same goes for all of the revolutionaries of 1968 and afterwards. 

Anyway, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of dissenters haven’t even thought about conscience at all—not even the erroneous understanding of freedom of conscience that we’ve tended to have these last 50 years.. They simply seized on the term because it lets them (so they think) conveniently do anything they want with their bodies without having to heed the inconvenient truths taught by the Church.

The Priests For Life Lawsuit

The complaint in the Priests for Life Case can be viewed here. It does a good job of showing, inter alia, the lack of any logical or legal difference between the original rule and the so-called "compromise."

The EWTN Lawsuit

For those of you who would like to read the EWTN complaint against the HHS ruling, you can find it here.


The complaint does a good job of pointing out that in light of all the waivers to Obamacare that have been granted by the Obama administration, the HHS rule should be seen not as an attempt to have all health plans be the same, regardless of religion, but rather as an intentional attack specifically targeting the Catholic Church because of its doctrines. That is both more reprehensible and constitutionally less defensible than the "one size fits all" approach that the administration claims to be pursuing with this regulation.

Peggy Noonan Agrees with Me

Peggy Noonan addresses the HHS rule crisis in her latest column in the Wall Street Journal. I consider her to be one of the best and most dispassionate analysts on the scene today, so I was gratified to see that, in general terms, she shares my "no compromise" outlook on the HHS rule crisis. Following is the relevant excerpt:


     An update on the furor surrounding ObamaCare and the Catholic Church. The Obama White House was surprised by the pushback but hopes it will blow over. Their thinking: The Catholics had their little eruption, letters were read from pulpits, the pundits came out, and then the pols. But life goes on, new issues arise, we'll hunker down, it'll go away. Meanwhile, play for time. Send David Axelrod out to purr about possible new negotiations.
    That would be a trap for the church. Any new talks would no doubt go past Election Day, at which time, if the president wins, he'll be able to give the church the back of his hand. 
     The short-term White House strategy is to confuse and obfuscate, to spread a thick web of untruths about the decision and let opponents exhaust themselves trying to fight from under the web.
     The church must be resolute and press harder. Now is the time to keep pounding—from the pulpit, in all Catholic publications and media, in statements and meetings. For how long? As long as it takes. The president and the more radical part of his base clearly thought the church was a paper tiger, a hollow shell, an entity demoralized and finished by the scandals of the past 20 years. 
     Now is the time for the church to show it's alive. How?
• Educate. Unconfuse the issues. Take a different aspect of the ruling and its deeper meanings every week, and pound away.
• Reach out. This is bigger than the Catholic Church. Go to the mainline Protestant churches, evangelicals, synagogues and mosques. Plead for vocal, public and immediate support: "If the church is forced to go against its conscience, religious liberty in America is not safe. If religious liberty is not safe, you are not safe."
• Know your people. Mr. Obama carried secular Catholics overwhelmingly in 2008. But churchgoing Catholics were evenly split, 51% to 49% for John McCain. These are the voters the president could lose by huge margins over the ruling. And he will, if they fully understand it. Such a loss could determine the 2012 outcome. He knows it, you know it. Have faith in the people in the pews. Give it to them straight, week after week, and they'll back the church overwhelmingly. The White House is watching. Pound away.
• Call for Democratic support. Religious liberty should not be a partisan issue. Republicans have come to the fore, but it's better for the church if Democrats do too. They're starting to come over. Make clear from the pulpit that members of both parties are absolutely essential in this fight. "All hands on deck."
     You can win. Keep the faith. Literally: Keep it.

Talk is Cheap

In the early1830s, several showdowns took place between the federal government and South Carolina, nominally over a taxation issue but in reality about something much more serious. The issue had been brewing for some years. With the federal government increasingly coming under northern domination, and the South fearful for its way of life—including its economy and the slavery on which it rested—southern states were getting leery of growing federal power.  in 1828, South Carolina published its Exposition and Protest, secretly authored by Vice President and South Carolinian John C. Calhoun. Calhoun’s penning of the Exposition and Protest was remarkably similar to Vice President Thomas Jefferson’s secret authorship of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, which likewise denounced federal overreaching—in his case the Alien and Sedition Acts.

            By 1830 there were high-profile debates in Congress on state nullification of federal law, and even hushed talk of the possibility of state secession from the Union. On Jefferson’s birthday that year, there was a tense confrontation between states’ rights southerners and the unionist president.

            Unfortunately for South Carolina, Andrew Jackson—ironically, also a South Carolinian by birth—was that president. And Jackson was almost fanatically devoted to the Union. And Jackson was both a violent man and an almost unbelievably tough and willful one. With his Jefferson Day toast, he threw down the gauntlet. “Our Federal union. It must be preserved.” We have reports that that by the end of that toast, Calhoun’s hands were shaking so much that wine was spilling from his glass.

            Soon thereafter, a member of Congress from South Carolina called on Jackson and asked if the president had any message for his friends in that state. Jackson’s reply is legend.

“Tell them from me,” the president said “that they can talk and write resolutions and print threats to their hearts’ content. But if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.”

The thing to remember about this statement is that it was not empty posturing. Jackson meant it. Literally. He had actually, on his own authority, personally hanged people before (as well as shot them to death and beat them to within an inch of their lives).

Theodore Roosevelt, another vigorous president, followed the rule of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Jackson wasn’t like that. His speech was violent and threatening. But he was perfectly willing and able to back that speech up with strong action when he needed to. You don’t believe him? You think he’s bluffing? Go ahead. Try him. Trust me, you’ll be sorry.

But though Jackson differed from Roosevelt in this way, there was one trap that both men assiduously avoided, and that is the mirror opposite of the big stick. The trap is simply this: screaming at the top of your lungs while shaking a twig. Jackson spoke; Roosevelt didn’t; but both of them had big sticks and were ready, willing, and able to use them.

To the point: I’m clad that Cardinal-designate Dolan has come out today and said that the so-called “compromise” that ourdread sovereign Obama has graciously deigned to offer us accommodates nothing,corrects nothing, and changes nothing. But all he’s done here is to advocate judicial challenges and legislative correction. I’ve written elsewhere that whether or not the courts will strike down the HHS ruling is somewhat iffy, and I can’t believe that enough congressional Democrats would go along with an attempt to overturn it. Cardinal-designate Dolan need to state, very clearly, that Catholic institutions will not—cannot—obey this law, no matter what the courts and Congress do (or fail to do). He needs the administration to be very clear on what is going to happen—massive civil disobedience to an unjust rule that arguably violates the First Amendment and certainly violates the natural law. He needs to go ahead and tell the administration the lengths to which Catholics will go. Were he to do so, it would save everybody a whole bunch of, in Jackson’s words, talk and resolutions.

Too much talk simply makes the administration think that this might actually be negotiable, that there is actually some sort of middle ground that will allow Catholics to violate their consciences, but only a little bit. From a Catholic perspective, this is simple. If the law forces us to cooperate in evil, then we can’t do it. So if Obama is really dead-set on having Catholics provide abortifacients to people, then let’s all get clear, right now, that despite whatever words are uttered or press releases issued or interviews granted or Oval Office meetings held, at the end either Obama backs down completely, or thousands—maybe millions—of Catholics go to jail—and in an election year.

Assuming, of course, that the bishops haven’t alienated all those Catholics in the last forty years.

Cooperation with Evil: Formal vs. Material

For those people who think that the new so-called “compromise” that Obama has magnanimously offered on Catholic institutions providing birth control, the following materal should be useful. The pro-compromisers seem to thaink that if the Chuch isn’t paying for the birth control, then everything is fine. But even assuming arguendo that insurers wouldn’t pass on the cost of the birth control to the Church, the problem remains if the birth control coverage remains, regardless of who is paying for it. To understand why, peruse the following two authorities: First, paragraph 1868 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

- by protecting evil-doers.

Next, a discussion on formal and material cooperation with evil authored by the  Pontifical Academy for Life in its 2005 document “Moral Reflections OnVaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses”:

The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.¹⁰ Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question¹¹.

A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted¹².

Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.

So if the Church is buying a group policy that covers contraceptives and abortifacients, whether or not the Church pays for those items, it is formally cooperating with evil, in that it intends to purchase and make available a policy that covers the items in question.

Further explanation and discussion can be found in a document published by the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

The impressive realism and coherence of Christian morality is based in part upon the fundamental convictions that (1) there is an objective moral order which can be known by the intellect and that (2) some actions are ''intinsically evil,'' that is, they are never morally justifiable regardless of the circumstances of the act. This is one of the major teachings of Veritatis Splendor. Three theological principles have been developed to deal with the ethical permissibility of actions which relate to either physical evil or the moral evil of other agents. These are known as (1) the principle of the double effect (see Ethics & Medics 3/95), (2) the choice of the ''lesser evil,'' and (3) the principles of cooperation. These concepts have been taught and reflected upon, and, with the exception of the second (lesser evil), they have enjoyed generally unquestioned acceptance in philosophical ethics and Catholic moral theology.

Historical Origins

St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787) made the principles of cooperation acceptable by introducing the distinction between formal and material cooperation and by a consideration of scandal as a serious invitation to sin. Cooperation in the ethically significant sense is defined as the participation of one agent in the activity of another agent to produce a particular effect or share in a joint activity. This becomes ethically problematical when the action of the primary agent is morally wrong.

There are three basic examples of cooperation on the part of individuals: the hostage, the taxpayer and the accomplice. The participation or cooperation of these individuals in the morally questionable acts of the principal agent is quite distinct one from another. The hostage is forced with threats to comply with the evil act of another person. Fear more or less compels the hostage to cooperate. This diminishes his culpability and in some cases eliminates it completely. In contrast, the accomplice may perform the same act as the hostage, but culpability is imputed fully because cooperation in this instance is free and willed (directly intended). The taxpayer is an example of one who cooperates with a principal agent (the government) in an important - in fact, essential - mission (societal governance). Nevertheless, it is possible that the government may sponsor activities which are immoral. The taxpayer then contributes in some degree to this immoral activity. However, contributing to the stability of society is not an intrinsic evil but a good.

The Principal Distinctions

Among the principles of cooperation, the primary distinction is between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is a willing participation on the part of the cooperative agent in the sinful act of the principal agent. This formal cooperation can either be explicit (''Yes, I'm happy to drive the getaway car because I want to be an accomplice'') or implicit.

''Implicit formal cooperation is attributed when, even though the cooperator denies intending the wrongdoer's object, no other explanation can distinguish the cooperator's object from the wrongdoer's object'' (Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services, [1994] Appendix). the motto of the implicit formal cooperator is ''I am personally opposed, but...'' This cooperation is as immoral as explicit formal cooperation.Material cooperation has several inherent distinctions, the most basic being that of immediate and mediate material cooperation. Theologians maintain that in the objective order, immediate material cooperation is equivalent to implicit formal cooperation because the object of the moral act of the cooperator is indistinguishable from that of the principal agent. Those who use the term ''immediate material cooperation'' have understood this as ethically unacceptable behavior. An example of this would be any form of employment in an abortion clinic.

Immediate material cooperation is contrasted with mediate cooperation. Here the moral object of the cooperator's act is not that of the wrongdoer's. (An example of this would be a health care worker employed in a secular hospital that also provides for morally prohibited procedures, but does not require the conscientious objector to such procedures to participate.) This kind of cooperation can be justified (1) for a sufficient reason and (2) if scandal can be avoided. It is a form of cooperating with the circumstances surrounding the wrongdoer's act. Depending on how closely these circumstances impinge upon the act, there is a distinction between proximate and remote material cooperation. (Proximate material cooperation would be the recovery room nurse who cares for all post-surgical patients, including those who may have undergone morally illicit procedures. This form of routine care is not intrinsically evil.)

Further, necessary material cooperation is that without which the sinful act could not occur. Contingent cooperation (also called free cooperation) is that without which the evil act would still take place. An example of necessary material cooperation would be being the only anesthesiologist available to assist with a woman undergoing a combination C-section and tubal ligation. Contingent material cooperation would exist if one were not the only such professional available.

Bottom line: The Church can’t partner with the government or the insurance company in providing these products to employees, regardless of who is paying for them. What part of this are the compromisers unable to understand?