Happy Anniversary, Gray Matters!

It has now officially been one year since Gray Matters was created. During its first year, Gray Matters has collected over 10,000 pageviews – not bad for a site that was mothballed on several occasions, due to the nearly insuperable laziness of the chief blogger/editor.

I hope and pray that this blog has helped you, to understand Catholicism a little better. I know that it has helped me understand my own limits and frailties, in coming to grips with the incredible beauty and richness of the Faith.

I must thank you, loyal readers, for taking the time to read through the rants contained within. Gray Matters would not exist without your prayers, support, and readership. 

Some individual thank yous are also in order. My brother Thomas and my sister Grace have both proven to be invaluable editors, assistants, and critics. Jeff Miller, who blogs under the name Curt Jester, gave me extremely helpful advice on how to start Gray Matters, and was kind enough to provide a link to it. Mark Shea, who blogs at Catholic and Enjoying It!, was also kind enough to provide his wisdom, expertise, and approval during the formation of Gray Matters. (Insert subtle hint to visit their sites!) The blog would much diminished without their efforts.

Those of you who have linked to Gray Matters from your own sites, thank you as well for your seal of approval, and may God bless your own efforts and your generosity.

As Gray Matters enters its second year, may it continue to serve the purpose for which it was formed – helping souls come to understand Christ and his Church better.

Once again, I place my unworthy work at Your service, O Lord. May it prove fruitful in helping men and women come to know and love You better.

Can Women Be Priests?

The recent trend towards equality and the interchangeability of the genders has prompted calls for women’s ordination. If men and women are truly equal in the sight of God, why can’t women be priests?

The question of "Why can't women be priests?" is flawed. All baptized Christian women are indeed priests.

When they are baptized, Christians are appointed with the triple office of priest, prophet, and king. The office of priest granted by the sacrament of baptism is part of the “common priesthood of all the faithful,” to be lived out in “a life of faith, hope, and charity.”

So Christian women can be priests – indeed, they are designated as priests through their very baptism, sharing in the common priesthood of the faithful. However, they cannot be ordained to the ministerial priesthood, granted by the sacrament of Holy Orders.

This raises the question of why women can’t be ordained to the ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church. After all, women are quite capable of dedicated service to God - why can’t they serve God on the altar?

The answer is deceptively simple, depending on the reality that the genders are not interchangeable. Men and women were created by God equal in dignity, but with very different roles to play.

Just as there are certain things men cannot do by their very nature as man that women can do (i.e., give birth) so too there are certain things women cannot do by their very nature as women that men can do.

The Roman Catholic priesthood falls into this category. The Catholic priest is an “alter Christus” – to be another Christ. When presenting the sacraments to the faithful, the priest quite literally takes the place of Christ.

Christ came to this earth as a man – he did not come as a woman. The role of the alter Christus demands that the practitioner be a man – as Christ was a man, so too must those taking the place of Christ be.

Thus, while all baptized men and women are priests, only men can be ordained to the ministerial priesthood.

The Catholic Death Penalty Dilemma

For Catholics, there are several non-negotiable positions, such as abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty. And then there are unsettled issues, such as the contentious death penalty question.

On one hand, we have the clear desire of the Catholic hierarchy (most notably Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) to eliminate the death penalty and respect even the lives of murderers.

On the other hand, we have the knowledge that the Catholic Church, in medieval times, has handed individuals over to secular authorities to execution (i. e., during the Inquisition), and that saints such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued in favor of the death penalty.

How is the faithful Catholic to resolve this seeming discrepancy regarding the death penalty? Very simply.

The death penalty, properly implemented, is designed to purge society of those who may be dangerous to it. But criminals are rendered less dangerous by technological advances in keeping prisoners captive.

In ancient and medieval times, societies were far more lawless than today. Dangerous individuals were more likely to escape from prison, or inspire followers to rescue them. In the modern era, however, prisons can be built to restrain all but the most desperate of criminals.

Accordingly, in situations where the public welfare is not endangered by keeping prisoners under guard, the death penalty can be eschewed.

The death penalty could and should still be brought into effect – but ONLY in very rare circumstances, namely in cases where international terrorists are present, or in the case of extremely dangerous, cunning and violent prisoners. In foreign countries which are more lawless, the death penalty might prove more common, as a deterrent to crime.

But the death penalty should not be used frivolously or for the purposes of revenge. Human life, even including the life of a murderer, is sacred, and should be protected.

The Catholic Church always errs on the side of human life – as it has done in every age. Her position concerning the death penalty throughout the ages reflects that fact. She seeks to protect the sanctity of human life, even those undeserving of it - yet she understands the danger murderers pose to civil society, and understands and approves society's right to protect itself from those criminals.

Blowing Up Foolish Memes, Libertarian Edition

Recently, I stumbled across this little gem of what is a clearly libertarian meme regarding social issues. Quoted in full, it reads:

Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.

Don’t like cigarettes? Don’t smoke one.

Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.

Don’t like sex? Don’t do it.

Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them.

Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it.

Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one.

Don’t like your rights taken away?

Then don’t take away anyone else’s.

The meme implicitly argues that "solitary" vices hurt no one, and thus should be allowed by society.

Is this a compelling argument? Not if you take it to its logical conclusion. Here are some other examples of similar, “solitary” vices.

Don’t like suicide? Don’t commit one!

Don’t like bulimia? Don’t binge eat and throw up!

Don’t like cutting? Don’t cut yourself!

Don’t like gluttony? Don’t overeat!

Don’t like the choking game? Don’t play it!

These vices, like the previous vices (at least, the vices among them; guns, sex, and cigarettes are not vices) harm no one except the practitioner. Should individuals simply be allowed to engage in these activities without criticism?

The answer is obviously no, because self-harm is not a fundamental human right. One does not have the “right” to hurt himself. It is a moral duty and a spiritual work of mercy to warn people (at the very least) of when they are engaging in self-destructive behavior.

But the argument fails on a deeper level. Human beings do not exist in a vacuum. Our every action (good, bad, and neutral) affects others for good or for ill. If we harm ourselves through our failures, those around us are harmed as well. Thus, the Christian refusal to accept "solitary" moral evil is beneficial and even necessary for society. 

Like other slogans such as “love is love” and “government in the bedroom,” the “don’t like this, don’t do this” meme is a lazy emotional appeal masquerading as cogent argument.

Are Relationships Political?

One of the most destructive follies of modernity is the notion that sexual relationships are at their heart matters of power and politics. Many feminists treat sex and relationships as political acts, and view and attempt to hinder women from working so as to attain “independence” as constituting a “war on women.”

The notion that sex and relationships are political in nature stems from the demonic attitude that human relationships are zero-sum games, where one person’s gain is another person’s loss. From this viewpoint, men and women attempt to assert their own power over the other through sexual activity.

But the relationship between a man and a woman is not meant to be a zero-sum relationship, but a mutually enhancing, joyful bond between two freely giving and receiving partners. In a Christian romantic relationship, the man is called to give himself entirely to his woman, and the woman gives herself to her man in return. Both are made complete by their mutual self-gift.

In Christian romantic relationships, men and women are not competitors – they are lovers, helping each other attain happiness.

But those who confuse sex with a power trip (men seeking to assert their masculinity by sleeping with myriad women, or women who use “vagina politics” to gain independence and control men through the power of the bedroom) transform couples into competitors, seeking personal pleasure or power. And in the long run, this creates division among males and females, who see each other as obstacles to happiness.

In making sex into a political act, prideful men and women have sown hatred, dissension – leading to a massive increase in divorce, infidelity, spousal discord, and a host of other societal evils.

How Will the Church Respond to the Contraception Mandate?

The June 28, 2012 Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (commonly termed Obamacare) quashed the hopes of conservative Catholics that a decision by the Obama administration to require religious employers to provide contraception might be repealed in the immediate future. In short, the mother of all clashes is brewing between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration.

On August 1, 2012, health plans for most organizations will be required to cover contraception, “emergency contraceptives,” and sterilization procedures. The mandate will be extended to non-profit religious employers on August 1, 2013. Narrow religious exemptions have been granted, but as Cardinal Wuerl has pointed out, not even Mother Teresa would qualify for these exemptions.

In other words, the Obama administration is forcing institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church to pay for coverage of contraceptives, “emergency contraception,” and sterilization. After being pressured by religious groups, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tweaked the mandate so that insurance companies would be forced to provide contraception instead of Catholic institutions themselves. But Catholic institutions would be paying insurance companies to provide birth control to employees, so the religious objections of Catholics have not been resolved. (Besides, since many Catholic companies and dioceses self-insure, the major sticking point remains for Catholics in a host of cases.)

If the Church did comply and provided contraception coverage to its employees, it would signify that the Church’s moral teaching on contraception could be changed. And the Church would instantly lose all credibility if She reversed herself on contraception or any of Her other moral teachings; if She could reverse Herself on one critical teaching at the whim of the state, any of Her teachings would be mutable.

Accordingly, the Catholic Church is treating the HHS mandate as a serious blow to religious freedom. Every single one of the Catholic bishops in America has sworn that the Church will not and cannot comply with the Obama administration’s mandate. President Obama refuses to budge on the matter. The Catholic Church is now celebrating a “Fortnight for Freedom” – two weeks of prayer and penance as part of a “great hymn of prayer for our country” – in response to the HHS mandate.

The Catholic Church can choose to respond to the HHS mandate in several different ways. Here is a brief overview of the ways the Church can choose to respond to it. This list will also examine historical precedents for these choices.

1)      The “Nuclear Option” – Shutdown  

If the Obama administration continues to force church-affiliated institutions to provide contraception to their employees, the Catholic Church may be forced to shut many facilities down. Rather than comply with the mandate, church authorities could shut down schools, hospitals, and charities.

In recent years, this has already taken place on a small scale. Rather than be forced to cater to homosexual couples, many affiliates of Illinois Catholic Charities shut their doors. Under similar pressure from the state to recognize homosexual couples, affiliates of Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington D.C. closed their adoption programs.

However, if Catholic schools and charities closed in large enough numbers, societal chaos would erupt. Tens of thousands of people are employed by Catholic-affiliated institutions, and millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike are served by these institutions. The suffering wrought by the decision to close the Church’s affiliated institutions would be immense.

But the alternative for the Catholic Church is impossible. This would truly be the Church’s nuclear option – one She would take only if there were no other choice.

2)      Passive Resistance

The Church could take a path of passive resistance – refusing to close affiliated institutions, while at the same time refusing to pay the fines mandated by the government as a penalty for not complying with the mandate. This would force the government to punish these institutions in other ways.

Essentially, this option would be a form of civil disobedience – namely, the refusal to obey an unjust law. This has historical precedent in the civil rights movement. Civil rights figures adopted tactics of passive resistance to fight against racial discrimination, crowding jails, refusing to pay fines, and not obeying what they (rightfully) considered to be unjust and discriminatory laws.

This is a potentially rewarding strategy, but one fraught with peril. The danger is that the government would be able to effectively punish Catholics without media or public outcry. In that case, those adopting this strategy would be punished by the government with little fanfare.

However, this option could potentially to make the Obama administration look very bad. Catholic charities punished or shut down by the government, because they refused to deny a key teaching of their faith, would draw the sympathy of fair-minded outside supporters, and could spark a massive public outcry.

3)       Obama Caves

This, of course, would be the ideal outcome. President Obama could simply rescind the HHS mandate regarding Catholics and contraception, and no conflict of religious liberty would exist.

It is possible, but very unlikely, that this outcome will occur. If the Church and Her allies were able to bring enough pressure on Obama, he might be forced to bend, as he did with the issue of gay marriage. There is the possibility of an “October surprise” on the part of Obama; a decision to “give in” to the Church might take place to pacify recalcitrant Catholics near the election, if his poll numbers were bad enough.

However, this is very unlikely. Obama and his administration implemented this contraception decision in an election year. He has since sworn that he will not compromise on this issue. He and his feminist allies wanted this fight badly; he chose an election year to implement this decision.

This outcome would occur only if an incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear on the President.

4)      Paying the Fines

Those who refuse to obey the mandate will be penalized with fines. Church businesses could pay fines (of $2000 for each individual employee employed by the institution), so that they would not have to pay insurance companies to cover contraception, “emergency contraception,” and sterilization.

For historical comparison, one would have to go back to Elizabethan England. During the Elizabethan era, refusal to attend established Anglican Church services resulted in fines. At first, the fines for not attending state-sponsored services were small. Later, the governments increased the fines to massive amounts, and only extremely wealthy Catholics could afford to pay those fines.

The likelihood of Catholic businesses paying fines to the government on a large scale is slim, for two reasons. The first is that Church businesses simply don’t have enough money to afford paying the government fines; only wealthy Catholic businesses could utilize this option. Also, this option would legitimize the mandate, effectively subordinating religious institutions to the state.

5)      The Bishops Cave

Hypothetically speaking, the bishops could give in and permit Church-affiliated institutions to accept the HHS mandate. But there is absolutely no chance that this will happen.

As previously noted, every single Catholic bishop in the United States of America opposes the mandate. Besides, the Church could not defend Her teaching on contraception if Her institutions were forced to provide it to their employees. If the Church were to cave on this decision, She would immediately lose all moral authority.

So what will happen?

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago succinctly summarized the Church’s options, declaring: “A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the Church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the Church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. (I did not examine this option, because this could not be implemented in all cases, and the institutions in question would not remain Catholic.) 4) Close down.” 

So what will happen if the mandate remains in place? Individual Catholic businesses will adopt a combination of these paths. A few wealthy businesses may be able to pay fines to the government. Poorer, smaller Catholic-owned businesses may be forced to shut down. Charities may continue to operate and refuse to pay the fines, daring the government to shut them down.

However, it is difficult to say which option the majority of Church businesses will take, assuming the mandate remains in place until it is implemented. But this much is clear. The Obama administration’s HHS mandate is nothing less than a declaration of war against the Catholic Church and religious liberty – and the Church will defend Her teachings on the morality of contraception with Her very life.

On the Rarity of Human Beauty

There is a reason why practically every Christian virgin martyr during the early persecutions was described as beautiful by outside observers.

The early Christian martyrs had the love of God burning within them. The love of God present in the human person makes one beautiful. And the deeper the presence of God in a human, the greater his or her beauty is.

It’s amazing how many men and women could be beautiful, if they wished to be – and how few of us are actually beautiful. There are many attractive women; after all, God designed women to be attractive to men! There are even many pretty women - the female face and form is pleasant for men to view. But beauty is a higher plane of attraction, implying a sensible, detectable level of goodness, present in the human body.

This is not to say that few of us are physically attractive. I have elsewhere distinguished between the terms sexy, pretty, and beautiful. 

There are few truly beautiful women – women in whom the love of God shines through, whose appearances reveal a willingness to follow God wherever He leads, whose voices reflect the sweetness and innocence of sanctity.

The few truly beautiful women I have been blessed to meet have nearly brought me to my knees – their appearance practically commands awe.

I am a male, so I naturally am more focused on the beauty of women. (I'm sexist like that. Sorry.) But the corollary is true in men.

There are few beautiful men – men in whom service becomes an elegant artform, whose voices resound with the power and authority of one who has mastered himself, in whom the power of protective strength is manifest.
Most, if not all, of us are capable of beauty - if we would simply forsake our own wills, and follow God's will.