Archbishop Chaput at the Youth Synod - Two Excellent Interventions

On the first day of the youth synod, Archbishop Chaput gave two excellent, incisive interventions (i.e., brief speeches to start the ball rolling, as it were).  Here are two articles about them, with the full text at the bottom of each article.

One, on how using secular terminology already gives away too much of what is in dispute.

Two, on the "moral adolensence" of Western materialist culture.

This is what leadership looks like.

UPDATE - 10/18 - Excellent interview with Abp. Chaput.  An excerpt:

"Augusto Del Noce, the late Italian philosopher, described our situation best in his essay, “Technological Civilization and Christianity.” It’s worth reading. As “postmoderns,” we’ve tried to overcome our despair with science and technology, and they produce many good things. But they also focus us radically on this world and away from the supernatural. As a result, man’s religious dimension, our sense of the transcendent, slowly dries up and disappears. Technological civilization doesn’t persecute religion, at least not directly. It doesn’t need to. It makes God irrelevant.

"The Church will survive and continue her mission. But to do that, she first needs to acknowledge that the culture she helped create now has no use for her — and why. As a Church, we don’t yet see our reality clearly and critically enough. For example, the current synod’s instrumentum laboris (IL) talks about young people and the effects of social media and the “digital continent.”  But it has no grasp of the deeper dynamics of technology that Del Noce names.

"The IL, in its original form, is a collection of dense social science data with very little evangelical zeal. It speaks constantly about accompaniment, which is important, but it contains almost no confident teaching. It can’t and won’t convert anybody. Hopefully, the synod fathers will fix this."

Archbishop Chaput on the New Evangelization

From a conference last week on evangelization and preaching, Archbishop Chaput gave this stirring and sobering reflection (courtesy of CatholicPhilly.com):

(Picking up with the second third of his talk:) And that requires us to understand the pastoral terrain we face as Christians right now, today.  We should probably start by realizing that some of the same civil authorities that once happily honored Father Serra with statues in Golden Gate Park and the U.S. Capitol building now work even harder to restrict the freedom of American religious communities, force the Church out of public debate, and impose same-sex “marriage” as the law.  Father Serra gave his life to the task of bringing the Gospel to the New World.  But the “new world” we actually have in A.D. 2013 is alien to almost anything Serra could have imagined.

Blessed Pope John Paul II saw the outline of our new “new world” more than 30 years ago.  And following his lead, the Church has been calling Catholics to the work of a “new evangelization” ever since.  But there’s a natural human tendency to attach magic powers to slogans, which then replace serious thought and effort — as if saying the slogan, or talking about it, actually makes mission work happen.  In practice, the words “new evangelization” are overused and underthought.  Unless we reconfigure our lives to understanding and acting on it, the “new evangelization” is just another pious intention – well meaning, but ultimately infertile.

From here he goes to interior conversion, and the possibility of inviting others to conversion when mostly people listen to the world telling them there's no reason to change even our most sinful and destructive behaviors.  He touches on the kind of shallow Christianity which has been called "moralistic therapeutic deism," and how it's so very different from real faith in Jesus Christ; on the narcissistic trap of love of novelty rather than substance; and on the resulting lack of the fundamental virtues that allow self-mastery which afflicts our culture.  He continues:

Here’s what that means for all of us as believers.  A “new” evangelization must start with the sober knowledge that much of the once-Christian developed world, and even many self-described Christians, are in fact pagan.  Christian faith is not a habit.  It’s not a useful moral code.  It’s not an exercise in nostalgia.  It’s a restlessness, a consuming fire in the heart to experience the love of Jesus Christ and then share it with others — or it’s nothing at all.  Mastering the new social and demographic data that describe today’s world, and the new communications tools to reach it, are vitally important for the Church.  But nothing can be accomplished if we lack faith and zeal ourselves.  We – and that means you and I — are the means God uses to change the world.  The material tools are secondary.  People, not things, are decisive.

This is always the basic dynamic of Church reform and flourishing: interior first, exterior second, leading to well-grounding mission.  Nothing surprising here, but his clarity and forthrightness are admirable.  So he goes on to talk about zeal:

The heart of every fresh work of evangelization is this kind of ardor; a passionate faith that can only come from seeking out and giving ourselves entirely to Jesus Christ, no matter what the cost.  Just as Francis was raised up in his time to preach the Gospel with new passion in new kinds of ways, so Junipero Serra followed the same path, with the same unshakeable faith, to preach Jesus Christ to new souls, on a new continent, in a new world.

And thus he concludes:

I began my talk today with a passage from St. Paul because the theme of this conference — “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (9:16) — comes from the same First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians.  The irony, the glory and the joy of faith in Jesus Christ is that the more we give it away to others, the stronger it grows, and the more we have for ourselves to feed our own hearts.  George Bernard Shaw once said that “When I was young, I observed that nine out of every ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work.”  Shaw was never a friend of Christianity, but that just makes me happier in borrowing his words.  Young or old, we need to live our faith as Junipero Serra did — all in, 100 percent, holding nothing back, with charity, endurance, passion and hope.  That kind of faith changes lives and remakes the world.

Read the full text of the talk.

Thoughts on Friday's proposed new version of the HHS mandate - Updated 2/7

(Update, 2/7 - Here's the expected response from Cardinal Dolan and the USCCB.) 

After sitting on the egg for the past nine months or so, the HHS Dept on Friday (2/1) released a new "notice of proposed rule-making" (full PDF here) regarding the much-contested implementation of the HHS mandate.  (For those keeping score, here are a few of our posts from last year on this issue.)  I've slogged through most of the new document, and have to agree (again) with Archbishop Chaput's brief analysis.

The White House has made no concessions to the religious conscience claims of private businesses, and the whole spirit of the “compromise” is minimalist.

And here, his conclusion:

The scholar Yuval Levin has stressed that the new HHS mandate proposal, “like the versions that have preceded it, betrays a complete lack of understanding of both religious liberty and religious conscience.”  In reality, despite the appearance of compromise, “the government has forced a needless and completely avoidable confrontation and has knowingly put many religious believers in an impossible situation.”
One of the issues America’s bishops now face is how best to respond to an HHS mandate that remains unnecessary, coercive and gravely flawed.  In the weeks ahead the bishops of our country, myself included, will need both prudence and courage – the kind of courage that gives prudence spine and results in right action, whatever the cost.  Please pray that God guides our discussions. [emphasis added]


Here's some of the key language from the full document:

On the exemption:

The Departments agree that the exemption should not exclude group health plans of religious entities that would qualify for the exemption but for the fact that, for example, they provide charitable social services to people of different faiths or employ people of different faiths when running a parochial school.... Accordingly..., the Departments propose to amend the [March 2012] definition of religious employer that was adopted in the 2012 final rules by eliminated the first three prongs of the definition and clarifying the fourth.  Under this proposal, an employer that is organized and operates as a non-profit entity and referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code would be considered a religious employer for purposes of the religious employer exemption. (p. 19)

St. Andrew's, Roanoke, VA

Those two articles are regarding the exemption from filing even an information return (Form 990) with the IRS for certain tax-exempt non-profits of religious character:

"(i) Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions of associations of churches;" and
"(iii) the exclusively religious activities of any religious order."

Thus, the religious exemption has not been substantially broadened at all.  It still excludes most if not all Catholic and other religious colleges, universities, health care institutions, charitable institutions like Catholic Charities, charitable fund-raising foundations, etc.  It does now clearly  include, in addition to parishes, most parish-owned institutions like schools, and possible cemeteries.

For these non-exempt religious employers, there is also very little change in the "accommodation" being offered.  Note first this rather revealing bit of rationalization about the distinctions being made:

In proposed [new rules]..., the Departments propose policies relating to the accommodation of certain group health plans and group health insurance coverage with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.  The Departments propose a comparable accommodation with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education.  The Departments believe these proposed accommodation, as opposed to the exemption that is provided to religious employers, are warranted given that participants and beneficiaries in group health plans established by eligible organizations, as well as student enrollees and their covered dependents in student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations, may be less likely than participants and beneficiaries in group health plans established or maintained by religious employers to share such religious objections of the eligible organizations. (p. 21, emphasis added)

I think it's rather alarming that the HHS feels capable of asserting that the diversity of employees at one Catholic (or other religious) institution makes that institution's Catholic (or other) identity less valuable than the Catholic identity of a less diverse institution.  This is, first, a dramatic example of the "tyranny of relativism."  And second, it betrays core principles of the right to private property - the fact that the Church owns a hospital, and therefore is entitled to define the mission and scope of the hospital's policies etc. (within reasonable bounds of what is consistent with the common good, certainly), is ignored, and the assertion of a newly invented "greater good" is used to violate more than only (only!) religious freedom rights.

For purposes of these proposed rules only, the Departments propose to define an eligible organization as an organization that meets all of the following criteria:

• The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered [under ACA] on account of religious objections;
• The organization is organized and operates as a non-profit entity;
• The organization holds itself out as a religious organization;
• the organization self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria...

This proposed definition is intended to allow health coverage established or maintained or arranged by non-profit religious organizations... to qualify for an accommodation. (p. 22)

The actual "accommodation" is thus largely unchanged from its original proposal last February.  The health insurance provider assumes the obligation, directly or indirectly, to provide the coverage to which the religious organization which is contracting with the provider objects morally:

...these proposed rules would provide that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan would assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, premium, fees, or other charge to plan participants and beneficiaries. (p. 24)

The proposed rules would direct the issuer receiving the copy of the self-certification [fourth point of eligibility, above] to ensure that the coverage for those contraceptive services identified [as objectionable] in the self-certificate is not included in the group policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; that such coverage is not reflected in the group health insurance premium; and that no fee or other charge in connection with such coverage is imposed on the eligible organization or its plan.

The huge question, of course, is how to guarantee this?  On the surface, it seems impossible that the insurance provider would not include the costs of this additional coverage in its normal business expenses, and assign cost-values to all its plans and customers accordingly.

The proposed rules would further direct the issuer... to provide contraceptive coverage under individual policies, certificates, or contracts of insurance... for plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge.  The coverage would not be offered through a group health plan... The issuer would automatically enroll plan participants in a separate individual health insurance policy that covers recommended contraceptive services... The eligible organization would have no role in contracting, arranging, paying for, or referring for this separate contraceptive service. (p. 24-25)

Two huge questions here.  First, if this individual plan is to be offered to all those enrolled in a given group health plan, how is it more than a merely conceptual difference to call it an "individual" plan?  Second, if all this could be solved by the issuing of individual plans, why is the entire mandate needed at all - why not simply have the HHS provide such individual plans directly, levy a clear tax for it, and avoid the whole First Amendment morass entirely?  And note, furthermore, the "automatic" enrollment.  Apparently even those employees who do, somehow, share the religious employer's religious objections are not permitted to act on their principles, either.

The Departments believe that, in the case of insured group health plans, this proposed arrangement would alleviate the need for eligible organizations to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage while providing contraceptive coverage while providing contraceptive coverage to plan participants and beneficiaries at no cost.  Actuaries, economists, and insurers estimate that providing contraceptive coverage is at least cost neutral, and may result in cost savings when taking into account all costs and benefits for the insurer. (fn 12)  (p. 26)

But there are huge problems with this assertion: First, the claim itself is contestable, and fact that the paper linked above in footnote 12 was written by an HHS staff researcher doesn't inspire confidence in its accuracy.  Second, in the same paragraph, there is this admission that the costs of these individual plans are simply not separable from the employer's costs of contracting for health insurance: "The Departments believe that issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost-neutral because they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies..." (p. 26, emphasis added)  And third, the document later admits that cost-neutrality is indeed an illusion, offering to off-set those costs with equal rebates to the fees associated with participating in the soon-to-be-imposed "Federally Facilitated Exchanges." (see pp. 27, 28, 33, 34, etc.)

Almost as an afterthought, the same approach is proposed for self-insured plans, with the same reimbursement of expenses from off-set FFE fees.  The "third party administrator" of the self-insured plan will assume the responsibility, with other details remaining again unchanged.  Again, there is no examination of any effective, practical separation of costs associated with the individual plans, merely the assertion that this saves the religious employer from complicity.

We are still waiting from official word from the leadership of the USCCB in response to this proposal. 





 

Round up: recent readings of interest - updated 9/19

Deacons are for proclaiming the Word of God, in word and in deed.  But we don't do that on our own, like liturgical Lone Rangers; we proclaim only in communion with our shepherd, apart from communion with whom we have no ministry, no mission.

Here's Pope Benedict proclaiming the Gospel during his recent apostolic visit to Lebanon. Text of all twelve of his addresses from this journey are at the link.

(Pope Benedict and Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch in the Basilica of St. Paul, Harissa; Reuters photo, from the link above)

Here's Archbishop Chaput proclaiming the Gospel in a more quotidian but still compelling fashion:
     Selfishness dressed up as individual freedom has always been part of American life.  But now it infects the whole fabric of consumer society.  American life is becoming a cycle of manufactured appetites, illusions and licenses that turns people in on themselves and away from each other. As communities of common belief and action dissolve, the state fills in the void they leave.  And that suits a lot of us just fine, because if the government takes responsibility for the poor, we don’t have to. 
     I’m using a broad brush here, obviously.  In Catholic social thought, government has a legitimate role – sometimes a really crucial role -- in addressing social problems that are too big and too serious to be handled by anyone else.  But Jesus didn’t bless higher taxes, deficit spending and more food stamps, any more than he endorsed the free market.
     The way we lead our public lives needs to embody what the Catholic faith teaches -- not what our personalized edition of Christianity feels comfortable with, but the real thing; the full package; what the Church actually holds to be true.  In other words, we need to be Catholics first and political creatures second. (emphasis in original)


Here's an interesting reflection from Anthony Esolen on subsidiarity and the way it's being consistently misrepresented in politics:
     The welfare state is a soft prison, a system of induced incapacity, to the benefit of the wardens.  It works in concert with public schools, another vast network of compulsions, whose existence is predicated on the assumption that learning, in children, is unnatural, so that only “experts” can fathom the mystery, and so that “good” parents will act as trusties, submitting to the authority and enforcing its often ridiculous and pernicious commands.  The next network of control is an infantilizing media, persuading people that they are stupid or fat or ugly, that they live in a shack, that they wear rags, that they need what the hawkers provide.  The last element is a diseased and counterfeit individualism: the promotion of selfishness and of vices that make true self-reliance, and therefore true community, impossible.

And, tangentially, here's part I of a very interesting apologetic piece on the Deuterocanon (the books of the Bible Catholics keep and Protestants reject).

Update, 9/19 - Here's Part II of the same apologetic piece.

And, even more tangentially, for a bonus, here's the free on-line quarterly journal, "Church Life," from the Institute for Church Life at Notre Dame - where, for the moment, a significant portion of the University's Catholicity is being consistently expressed (link to Vol 3, vols 1 and 2 available there also).

Archbishop Chaput nails it

Archbishop Chaput gave this address to a pro-life conference in Philadelphia on Sunday. Do read the whole thing, it's outstanding. Here's a taste of his zeal:

Catholics need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith. What we’re watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV. And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral.

As the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb observed more than a decade ago, “What was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned; what was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.” But even more importantly, she added, “As deviancy is normalized, so what was once normal becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral – the ‘bourgeois’ family as it is invidiously called – is now seen as pathological” and exclusionary, concealing the worst forms of psychic and physical oppression.(6)

My point is this: Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.

Therefore we need the martyrs' zeal, to live our faith and our hope publicly and fearlessly and consistently.

Lord, give us the grace to be "useful to the Gospel"

What applies to individuals can apply just as easily to institutions and organizations. The more that Catholic universities or hospitals mute their religious identity, the more that Catholic social ministries weaken their religious character, the less “Catholic” they are, the less useful to the Gospel they become.

From an address by Archbishop Chaput to the Catholic Social Workers National Association, in June 2011, and published on First Things. And in case you've missed it, Archbishop Chaput was named today the next bishop of Philadelphia.

Archbishop Chaput: "Politics and the Devil"

Archbishop Chaput gave a keynote lecture for a student Right to Life organization at the University of Notre Dame earlier this year, which is now published online by the Witherspoon Institute. Here's a taste:

Jacques Maritain and Leszek Kolakowski came from very different backgrounds. Maritain was deeply Catholic. Kolakowski was in no sense an orthodox religious thinker. But they would have agreed that good and evil, God and the devil, are very real — and that history is the stage where that struggle is played out, both in our personal choices and in our public actions; where human souls choose their sides and create their futures. In Kolakowski’s own words, “we are not passive observers or victims of this contest, but participants as well, and therefore our destiny is decided on the field on which we run.”

Politics is the exercise of power; and power — as Jesus himself saw when Satan tempted him in the desert — can very easily pervert itself by doing evil in the name of pursuing good ends. But this fact is never an excuse for cowardice or paralysis. Christ never absolved us from defending the weak, or resisting evil in the world, or from solidarity with people who suffer. Our fidelity as Christians is finally to God, but it implies a faithfulness to the needs of God’s creation. That means we’re involved — intimately — in the life of the world, and that we need to act on what we believe: always with humility, always with charity, and always with prudence — but also always with courage. We need to fight for what we believe. As Kolakowski wrote, “Our destiny is decided on the field on which we run.”

The whole essay is worth reading.

Maniple wave to Dcn. Rick R. for passing the link my way.