A Meditation on "Compromise"

            This blog will begin as a spinoff to Southern Orders,  to which I’m a frequent comment poster. In  the last few days I've had a couple of thoughts I've wanted to post there but which haven't  been exactly on point to any of the posts Fr. McDonald has made there. So I' decided just  to post them here.

            The main issue I wanted to post about is one of compromise on the recent HHS ruling  that requires Catholic institutions to provide health insurance coverage that includes  abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception. The President of Notre Dame, a priest by  the name of John Jenkins, has recently floated a compromise that he believes all sides  will find acceptable: since it's a bit technical, I won't summarize it on this blog, but you  can read about it here http://blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2011/12/20/notre-dame- cha-propose-dangerous-compromise-on-religious-liberty/

            and here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-health-assn-notre-dame-pushing- dangerous-compromise-on-birth-contr/

            I have never referred to a Catholic priest, or anyone else, as a Judas before, but Notre  Dame's president is rapidly proving his qualification for the term. Three years ago,  despite massive protest as well as objections from the local bishop, he not only invited  President Obama to speak at Notre Dame commencement ceremonies, but conferred an  honorary degree on the man, saying it would further the dialogue between pro-life and  pro-abort groups. To which I responded: What dialogue? If there is a single, unshakable,  non-negotiable issue of the far left, it's unlimited, publicly-funded, abortion on demand  for everybody. There is no dialogue on the issue, nor will there ever be.

            Now Jenkins floats this so-called compromise. Additionally, new sources this morning  are reporting that Obama will announce a compromise this afternoon, possibly one based  on the Hawaii Plan, by which the Church would have to refer women to outside  healthcare providers who would give them the services in question.  

            Well, what's the problem with that? American politics has always been an exercise in  compromise. In the American political scheme, "compromise" is a good thing, a positive  term.

            Here's the problem: The Catholic Church isn't just some political player. It's the Catholic  Church. It has a moral duty to follow both the Divine and Natural Laws and to preach the  truth. When the truth compromises with evil, the result is like what you get when you mix  dirt and ice cream. It doesn't improve the one, and it completely ruins the other.

            The so-called compromise here, if adopted, wouldn't be a compromise at all, but a victory  for secularism and government power. It would be a disaster for the church, both  tactically and strategically.

            Tactically, a compromise would still either require at least some Catholic institutions to  supply the objectionable services (the Jenkins plan) or else would require Catholic  institutions to cooperate materially, or perhaps even formally, in the evil (the Hawaii  plan). In other words, we would compromise (in a bad sense, the sense of departing from  truth and the natural Law) the moral teachings and practices of the Church.

            Strategically, any so-called compromise would also be a disaster. For the first time in  more than 40 years, the HHS rule has produced an outcry of solidarity from a large  number (but by no means all, more's the pity)  of American bishops and well-placed laity.  Non-Catholics and even non-Christians are joining in. This is a defining moment for  Catholicism, when at last it will stand up and say "Thus far. No farther." If it caves now  (and compromising would without doubt be caving), then all the outcry of the last few  weeks will amount to so much sound and fury, and secularism will then know it can have  its way with the Church in America. The Church, having severely damaged its credibility  by its complicity in evil during the last 40 years (including its unconscionable handling o  the sex abuse crisis ten years ago), will have no credibility left.

            Standing up now does bring risks. The biggest one is from within. Having refused to  catechize its own members for two generations, having refused to make examples of so- called Catholics who have scandalized the faith (such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry,  Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden (who's also touting compromise, btw), and yes, Kathleen  Sebelius), the Church now has a laity who largely follow the lead of the secular world in  terms of birth control and abortions. All of the studies I have read--and I've read many-- show that the percentage of Catholics on the Pill is roughly the same as Americans as a  whole. So, if told by their Bishops and pastors now that this isn't acceptable, I wonder  what they'll do? Will we see open protest from the pews? Will we see a mass exodus  from the Church?

            We may. And I say let them go. What's in a name? Long ago the Church declared that a  Catholic is one who is validly baptized and who adheres to the faith. If this laity isn't  adhering to the faith, then may they follow their consciences and go in peace. I wish them  the best. But they aren't Catholic.

            Of course, this will mean declining revenues, and I wonder if the bishops will be able to  stomach that. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.

            But what's the alternative? For the Church to say "Oh, wait. We've been wrong. All of  Christendom was wrong about birth control and abortion for 2000 years. The Didache got  it wrong. The Church Fathers got it wrong. Aquinas got it wrong. Thank God the  American government came along this last couple of centuries and explained it to us."

            At least that would be honest. But what we'll get is a bunch of hand-wringing  "compromise" instead.

            Two quotations to finish up with. The first from William Lloyd Garrison.

            "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for  severity?  I will be  as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.  On this subject, I  do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation.  No!  no!  Tell a man whose  house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the  hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into  which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.  I am  in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch --  AND I WILL BE HEARD.  The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap  from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."  

            The last word I'll leave to Napoleon, as stated in his Military Maxims: "A well- established maxim of war is, not to do anything which your enemy wishes--and for the  single reason that he does so wish."

            Obama is wishing for a "compromise" right now. 'Nuff said.