Wall Street Journal The very modern papacy of John Paul II. April 2, 2005
When the white smoke curled up from the Sistine Chapel on that October evening back in 1978, it signaled that a new Pope had been chosen. His name was Karol Wojtyla. He came, as he said, from a distant land, and as he looked upon the faithful who had gathered on St. Peter’s Square he offered words that would sum up his pastoral mission: “Be not afraid.”
Pope John Paul II died today. In the post-Berlin Wall world this man did so much to shape, it’s difficult to recall the much different circumstances that obtained when he assumed the chair of St. Peter. Former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro had been kidnapped and executed by terrorists. In Iran bloody protests were brewing that would within months pull down the Shah and usher in the ayatollahs. In the Soviet Union the dissident Anatoly Shcharansky (now the Israeli Natan Sharansky) was dispatched to the gulag, while Afghanistan had already endured the leftist coup that would, in short order, lead to a full-fledged Soviet invasion.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were still in the future, and so was a workers’ strike called by an unknown Pole named Lech Walesa. Everywhere one looked, the truth of the Brezhnev Doctrine seemed brutally self-evident: Once Communist, always Communist. Oh, yes: The Catholic Church which this first Slavic pope found himself bequeathed was thought by many to be hopelessly irrelevant to the crises of modern times.
Yes
Strangely Dry and Abstract
James writes:
Likewise, Catholic teaching tells this same priest that he may have to tell an HIV+ husband that he can either a)refrain from engaging in sex with his HIV- wife completely or b)play Russian Roulette and cross their fingers, hoping that she doesn?t catch the disease. Despite the twinge of conscience that alerts him that he?s going to be partially responsible for the poor woman?s infection, he must basically keep his mouth quiet if he doesn?t want to be disciplined by Rome.
**********************************************************************************
It is truly appalling to me that a husband (or a wife) would consider, even for a moment, having relations with his wife (her husband) IF even the slightest chance existed that the spouse could contract HIV+
************************************************************************************
Not Abstract But Concrete Examples
Magic Johnson’s wife (who is a Christian, by the way) has chosen to remain with him, despite his many infidelities and HIV+ status. I’ve read that she also continues to take reasonable precautions with him, which is her choice even though condom use does not provide a 100% guarantee. I cannot fathom that a Catholic priest must be forced to tell her to discontinue all relations with him (or divorce him??).
This is a thorny issue, I realize, but is there no difference between obedience to one’s faith whether one agrees or does not agree, and the completely lack of a brain to where one is incapable of forming an opinion until they hear what the correct one is?
Contrived Hypothetical
I find JamesK hypothetical to be contrived. Here is why. My understanding is that the Catholic Church’s formal teaching is that sexual activity should be reserved for procreation inside marriage. One can accept or reject this teaching, one can also decline to attend a Catholic Church, one can decline to consult a Catholic priest.
Let’s assume the best about the husband. Let’s assume that he contracted the HIV+ condition innocently through a blood transfusion. As a factual matter, sexual relationships with a condom over a long period of time would result in transmission of the disease. Condoms have a failure rate and given enough time, the condoms will fail. JamesK obviously wants us to assume that the condom would protect the wife over the long term.
Putting myself in the place of a Catholic priest, something of a stretch I might add, I would say that there are many honorable reasons why a married couple might not want to conceive a child. Maybe the overall health of the wife couldn’t support a full pregnancy, or the couple already had a large family or many other reasons. Catholic teaching as I understand it would require the couple to abstain from sex if they wanted to totally avoid pregnancy. I don’t see how this would change under the above circumstances. Catholic theologians haven’t hidden this teaching and it shouldn’t be news to anyone. Wanting to avoid a tenth pregnancy would be an honorable reason to want to use a condom, but, Catholic teaching as I understand it would instruct the couple to use “natural forms” of birth control or abstain. Here the answer would have to be “abstain” because any unprotected relations would transmit an incurable disease.
I agree that this is a hard teaching but I am not RC. If people take their religious affiliations seriously they should probably rethink membership in the RC if they cannot live with the teachings.
We have quite a religious smorgasbord in the U.S. to choose from
RE #50: The reasoning JamesK uses assumes that personal sexual fullfillment should be unhindered by any constraints of reason, commonsense, or obligation to others. In fact, within Christianity, modesty, virginity and even within marriage, self-restraint are the norm. Even making the statistically rare assumption that the husband in this case acquired HIV from a blood transfusion, not drug use or adultery, the priest should instruct the man to inform his wife, and absolutely refrain from any sexual activity. If the man were a Christian husband, he would do so. If the man elects to continue in his sin, the priest is in no way complicite in the consequences of the man’s sin. The real dilemma the priest would have would be whether to inform the wife or not, thus breaking the confidentiality of the confessional.
In any case, sexual abstinance is the only way to 100% prevent the infection of the woman. The fact is that the relatively large pores on condoms don’t prevent the spread of a virus very well.
Secular reasoning founded on a sickening anthropology of materialism and individual fulfillment is nothing but the lowest of human depravity masquerading as social philosophy.
JamesK’s hypothetical further assumes that knowledge of and adherence to a particular faith’s teachings if they are difficult or involve hard decisions is the act of a brain dead automaton. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faith in a fallen and sinful world requires hard decisions.
Let me state it as the Church as always taught: living an authentic Christian life is hard, the narrow way. Any attempts by Chrisitans themselves or our enemies to protray the Christian life as easy in any way is foolish at best, downright dishonest and even blasphemous at worst.
As Missourian stated, if you are unwilling or unable to adhere to the established doctine of a religious tradition, leave. That does not mean that sincere, probing questions about the nature of one’s responsibility to that doctrine are out of the question, quite the contrary. Just as there was a big difference to Mary’s question to Gabriel, “How can this be, seeing as I have known no man” and Zacharias unbelief revealed in his questioning the angel who brought him the news of the coming conception of John the Baptist. Mary’s question was formed out of a desire to be fully obediant, while Zacharias question was formed from suspicion, mistrust and fear.
Obedience and submission to God’s love are required in the Christian life. While such obediance and submission lead ultimately to the Kingdom of Heaven, in the short run they frequently lead to suffering and pain. The Way of the Cross is the way of the Christian. We are called to lay down our lives for our friends.
Maybe that is what Magic Johnson’s wife is doing out of loving obediance to God and her understaning of her marriage vows. That is her personal choice and if indeed she is doing it from that understanding, I am sure that God will bless her greatly and it may even lead to Magic’s salvation. However, Magic or the initial hypothetical husband would be in accord with the calling of our Lord to voluntarily abstain, to lay down their life for the sake of their spouse. Such would be the authentic Christian response. That Magic continues to put his own wife at risk indicates to me the depth of his own selfishness. The same selfishness that got him infected in the first place.
Having it both ways: Approval of a Catholic Priest but Freedom from Catholic Teaching’s Requirements
There is another way in which James K hypothetical is contrived. I previously assumed that the husband contradicted HIV+ innocently through a bad blood transfusion. Let’s assume the husband contracted HIV+ through illicit sexual conduct.
Turning back to Christian teaching: chastity before marriage and monogamy after. This is not an isolated teaching. Christianity builds and establishes a web of loving relationships between God and Man, between husband and wife, between parents and children, among neighbors in communities. Physical love is a jewel which is stored in the jewel box of a truly loving marriage. The Christian gives up the rewards of casual sexuality for the treasure of that true jewel of love. This is why Christian love between husband and wife can attain such deep, rich and wondrous dimensions not available under other circumstances. So we give something up to gain something. There is a parable about a person discovering a pearl in a field and selling all that he had to purchase that field so that he could own the pearl. Christians give up the rewards of cheap sexuality for the pearl of true love between spouses in marriage (if marriage is part of their personal calling and destiny in life.)
A Christian may choose in some circumstances to turn away from an occupation that would provide great wealth because he believes that his calling requires him to serve the Lord in some other capacity. A Christian may required to “give up” many things that the world values in order to serve the Lord and save his soul. A Christian’s calling may require sacrifice. Here in the United States we have a high level of personal wealth and freedom. Being Christian in Nigeria or Sudan or China requires a great deal more risk and sacrifice. JamesK’s hypothetical shows a lack of perspective and proportion in the worldview of the husband.
HUSBAND ACQUIRES HIV+ THROUGH ILLICIT SEX and BUT WANTS TO STAY IN THE CHURCH
We have to assume that this man is a Christian, he is consulting a Christian moral advisor. We have to assume that he has some understanding of the teaching and the rationale behind the teaching on personal sexual morality. His internal attitude has to be one of remorse and contrition for his immoral act. I can’t see him demanding that the priest condone another act which violates Church teaching so that he can engage in physical realtions. Does not compute.
HUSBAND ACQUIRES HIV+ INNOCENTLY
Again, this man is consulting a Christian moral advisor. This means that he wants to guide his life by Church teachings. We have to assume that he understands that teaching and agrees with it or he shouldn’t be in that Church. He apparently wants the comfort of the Church’s approval of his conduct. Again, I don’t see how an innocently acquired HIV+ infection is any different from a husband of a physically frail wife who cannot sustain the stress of another pregnancy. Both reasons are honorable, are not the result of wrongdoing but both cases result in abstention as the moral route under Catholic teaching. Christians do not value physical gratification as an end in itself, other things have more value and worth. Love for one’s spouse transcends and emcompasses so much more than physical love.
We’ve gotten off track here. The question is whether one can be a “good Catholic” (or a “good Orthodox”) by obeying church doctrine while still believing the doctrine to be absurd. There are probably many who find little rational difference between the use of a calendar to avoid pregnancy and the use of a contraceptive (the intent is the same, yes?), but they’re willing to do as the Church suggests. I’d suggest these are still “good Catholics”.
There are others who in the ’50s probably saw eating an extravagant seafood dinner as opposed to the hypothetical McD’s burger as contrary to the spirit of the law and so “disobeyed” Church teaching on this particular issue. I can’t in every circumstance suggest they find another Church. Perhaps they believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and so do not wish to become Baptists. Are these “lapsed believers”? Sorry, but I can’t generalize and say yes, here, either.
If a husband contracted HIV, either through immoral behavior or innocently through, say, a blood transfusion, the commandment to love the neighbor (in this case his wife), would require him to do all things possible to prevent her from getting his disease. This includes abstention from sexual relations.
Contrary to what our culture teaches, physcial relations are not an end in themselves. They are meant to framed in a larger context of love, hence the prohibition of sexual relations outside of marriage. Granted, most people ignore the prohibition, but the epidemic in STD rates, the new strain of the AIDs just discovered (called “super AIDS”), etc. shows that even nature points to prohibition in its own way.
James asks a very important questions. Are all of the positions of the church on matters of morality and doctrine “non-negotiable”, or are there a small number of issues that remain open to debate and further theological and intellectual investigation?
I would agree that many the positions of the church on matters of morality and doctrine are, in fact, non-negotiable. These would include any of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles found in the Gospels, the statements in the Nicene Creed, and the sanctity of the Sacraments. The Catholic religious historian John Dominic Crossan foe example, has written several scholarly books on Jesus Christ, whom he celebrates as a revolutionary, rebel preacher, but because Crossan rejects the Resurrection, we cannot accept Crossan’s conclusions and remain true to our faith.
There are other moral or doctinal issues however, stemming from situations or developments the Church fathers could never have imagined or anticipated, like oral contraception, artificial life support, or stem-cell research. The teachings of the church regarding these issues are not directly found in scripture or early canonoical writings but “implied” by them. The implied nature of the church teaching on those issues makes them more open to debate and consideration.
Likewise there is good evidence that the apostles, including even St. Peter was married, so the issue of clerical celibacy is unclear at best, and would be better served by further investigation and discusion.
These are difficult, complicated issues and as we have found, intolerance to even the request for debate creates disaffection and division among brothers with legitimate questions and concerns. With a loving tone, placing the unity of the church foremost, we need to pray to God for patience, understanding and perseverence to be able to discuss these issues in a manner that accomodates the concerns of all, while remaining on the true path and not straying away to the teachings of our faith.
Note 58. You deal with people according to what they understand. If a person lives contrary to moral teachings because of ignorance, you educate him. If a person rebells against the teaching (like the lesbian minister wannabe), you reprove him. If a person scorns or scoffs the teachings, you leave him alone.
Further, there is a difference between moral commandments and recommended disciplines, although a person who recognizes and understands the wisdom of the commandments will also recognize the benefit of the disciplines. Fasting is a discipline for example, and shouldn’t be compared to say, the commandment against adultery.
Note 60. Dean writes: “These are difficult, complicated issues and as we have found, intolerance to even the request for debate creates disaffection and division among brothers with legitimate questions and concerns.”
Examples?
No. 62: Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a good example. This is an issue the Church fathers could never have anticipated and never addressed. As we interpret their writings and seek scriptural guidance it at appears at first glance that the Christian prohibition against taking human life would require that we prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells in research and for the production of future therapeutic agents.
However there are several mitigating considations.
First there is also a Christian moral imperative to save human life and ease suffering. If embryonic stem cell life can assist in the research and development of future therapeutic agents that reduce the suffering associated with various diseases is there not a counter-vailing moral imperative to go forward with such research?
Second, do we value all forms of life at every stage of growth, development and decline equally, or can we say that some forms of life deserve greater consideration. In a column two weeks ago former Senator (and Episcopal Minister) John Danforth asked, in a NY Times opionion piece, whether a collection of cells in a petrie dish that have barely had time to multiply, have the same value as a fully grown human suffering from a disease. A living human is sentient and fully formed, an embryo is not. If two patients are poisoned and we only have antidote for one, do we save the healthy infant with his life ahead of him or the 96 year old suffering from a terminal disease?
It may be that church opposition to embryonic stem cell research is morally correct, and that the pro-research arguments while important, ultimately do not carry equal weight as the reasons for opposing embryonic stem cell research. But can the church now condemn embryonic stem cell with the same vigor and moral certainty or with which it condemns murder or genocide or abortions of social convenience, or are we still at an early stage in the discussion where the pros and cons still seem far from settled? Should a loving church just say to those suffering from diseases and hoping for a cure from stem-cell research, “you are wrong, now go away sinners”? Or does a loving Church continue to explore and understand the issue and try to compassionately address the concerns of those having difficulty with a moral position of the church?
More muddy waters and another twist on the Schiavo case in Ohio.
Baby Aiden Stein most likely will die within seven months without ever regaining his sense of self or the world, according to a guardian’s report filed in Summit County Probate Court. Meanwhile, the bill for the 17-month-old boy from Mansfield who is blind, deaf and can’t eat or breathe on his own has reached almost $1.6 million, according to the report by Akron attorney Ellen Kaforey. Doctors believe Aiden is the victim of shaken baby syndrome, although no charges have been filed.
Taxpayers have contributed almost $769,000. Although Medicaid reimbursements still are trickling in, the federal insurance program may leave Akron Children’s Hospital stuck with the rest of the tab, Kaforey said. Aiden has spent almost 14 months in the Children’s pediatric intensive care unit, kept alive with a breathing machine and a feeding tube surgically inserted directly into his stomach.
Doctors believe he has suffered irreversible destruction of his upper brain and should be allowed to die. His parents have fought in the courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, for almost a year to keep Kaforey from turning off Aiden’s breathing machine.
…
The Orthodox Church on contraception:
“Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
If the Roman Catholic Church wishes to blanketly prohibit contraception, rather than having a more balanced position such as the Orthodox Church, then that is the business of the Roman Church. I prefer the Orthodox position, and since I do not belong to the Roman communion, I will abstain from any criticism.
According to the Orthodox Church:
“Holy Scriptures treats death as the separation of the soul from the body (Ps. 146:4; Lk. 12:20). Thus it is possible to speak about a continuing life as long as an organism functions as a whole. The prolongation of life by artificial means, in which in fact only some organs continue to function, cannot be viewed as obligatory and in any case desirable task of medicine. Attempts to delay death will sometimes prolong a patient’s agony, thus depriving him of the right to ‘honourable and peaceful’ death, for which the Orthodox Christian solicit the Lord during the liturgy. When intensive care becomes impossible, its place should be taken by palliative aid (anaesthetisation, nursing and social and psychological support) and pastoral care. All this is aimed to ensure the true humane end of life couched in by mercy and love.”
All of Terri Schiavo’s organs were fully functional. She was not dying. She need palliative care only, meaning in her case, food and water. It was introduced by way of a tube, but it is possible that she could take food orally. The absence of drool indicates that she was capable of swallowing. If so, then removal of the tube did not have to mean her death. All Orthodox Bishops speaking about her case have condemned it.
The infant in JamesK’s example has massive, multiple organ failure. The Church would consider his current course of treatment to be extreme measures. The case is complicated by the fact that his parents will not consent to their withdrawl. In this case, I would simply state that if his parents can pay the bill for continuing their son’s treatment, then they should be allowed to do so. If not, then it is permissable to withdraw extreme measures which only prolong the dying process.
Again – Terri was NOT dying. This child is. He’s terminal, barring a miracle. Totally different cases.
Note 63. First things first. Avoid tendentious replies. They imply you are not really interested in any answers that disagree with your premise. For example:
This is moral posturing, Dean. It’s the projection of a politically correct attitude; casting those who disagree with embryonic stem cell research as moral cranks more interested more in judging others rather than helping them. It reads as if you are trying to stifle ideas rather than engage them, which, after all, is the goal of politically correct thinking.
—-
It is wrong to use embryos for research because embryos, while in a very primitive stage of devepment, are still human beings. If left unmolested, embryos grow up to be adults. They are on the continuum of human development, which means that they are human beings.
This is a moral determination, just like the one we apply to unborn children. For years we heard that the unborn child was only “potential human life” while forgetting that potential rests in being. IOW, the “potential” to which pro-abortionists referred actually affirmed the unborn’s humanity, not denied it. Of course they were confused and really believed the argument and tirelessy fostered their confusion in the greater culture as well. To some measure they succeeded, but it seems the tide is turning against them, at least polemically.
Human life cannot be reduced to utilitarian values — the cost/benefit analysis of the social technocrat — without opening the door to legalized killing. You see it with abortion. Arguments promising no abortion after the first trimester morphed into arguments justifying brain extraction of newborns half-way down the birth canal (your Democratic party defends this shameful practice, Dean). Embryonic stem cell research just pushes this line back a bit farther in the beginning stages of lie, just as euthanasia applies it to the end stages.
This does not mean however, that stem cell research should be discontinued. Just the opposite. The research holds tremendous promise for healing maladies we thought were incurable as recently as 10 years ago. (See my article: Why is the Orthodox Church Silent on Stem Cell Research for some examples.)
A misconception you seem to hold is that a ban on embryonic stem cell research is holding back progress in medicine. In fact, the progress so far (some of it quite astonishing) is accomplished with adult, not embryonic cells. There are quite a few internet sites that discuss this so I won’t repeat it here. (US Catholic Bishops, Michael Fumento, Wesley Smith, Embryonic / Adult Stem Cell Research.
Here is an interview with Leon Kass, one of our better ethicists and the head of the President’s Council on Bioethics that looks at some of the political and moral factors of the debate.
So don’t assume the Christian moral tradition is against stem cell research. It’s not. It is against the sacrificing human embryos for this research however. Further, the success we have so far is with adult cells, not embryonic.
Note 65. Glen’s analysis is correct, although this is a situation where the parents need great care as well. The resolution to this tragic case involves the parents coming to accept the reality their child is dying before the decision is made to stop the breathing machine. Forcing them to pay for treatment as a condition of maintaining respiration isn’t the way to resolve this (they are probably bankrupt already anyway). Someone needs to help them deal with the problems that are holding them back.
I agree father, the parents need a great deal of pastoral counseling. I made the point that the parents, if they have the means, should be allowed the option to continue care. Terri’s parents were denied that right. They wanted to care for and feed their daughter. A court told them no, and forced them to sit by. I would not want to see any parents forced into that situation. On the other hand, I am sensitive to the drain this case represents on tax dollars that have been confiscated by force from the paychecks of innocent workers.
This is the pickle that we find ourselves in with public funding of health care. In this case, since any objective Theologian would conclude that the child should be allowed to die, I think the proper thing to do would be for the state to end its funding. If the parents have the means, and wish to employ them, so be it. If not, then the child will pass on. The problem is that once economic reasoning is employed, then we, again, start on that slippery slope that could end in Euthanasia.
In the short run, I think the best we can do is to insist that if state-subsidized care is withdrawn, that no prohibition exist against using private funds to continue treatment. Then we need to get to work outlining the proper relationship between tax money and health care, and we need to get to work soon. Theologians, unfortunately, often talk much about the obligations of ‘society,’ without dealing with the details of by what mechanism society is to fulfill its obligations.
This is a good page to read if you have the time.
Pope John Paul II was the Pontiff of the R.C. Church for 26 years and upheld moral values in the church. Premarital sex, same sex marriages, divorce, artificial birth control, married priests, women priests, and abortion are absolutely forbidden. His general stance is abstinence of sex will prevent AIDs.
However, not all of us are strong enough to resist temptation. Some of us suffer because of the sins of the fathers. Others are led to sin because of circumstances e.g. poverty. Others don’t live up to the teachings of the church because they want an easy time or because they are controlled by the spirits of lust, adultery, fornication or whatever.
Pope John Paul did not have an answer for those of us who have fallen from grace. The normal reaction of Catholic priests is repentance in confession. But this is not good enough because there are many paedophile priests, victims of sexual abuse in the western world and AIDS sufferers in Africa.
Nothing had been done about the priests who have abused children. Only large sums of money have been paid to the victims in compensation. What the abuser requires as well as the abused victims of sexual abuse is Christian counselling which leads to healing and wholeness through the power of the Holy Spirit. Many AIDS patients in Africa are being healed and brought into the Kingdom of God on earth. The ministry of healing and deliverance, sadly, is stronger in the Protestant church than it is in the Roman Catholic church. The most outstanding ministry is run by Archbishop Gilbert Deya, a Kenyan African, in South London but he has been persecuted by those who do not believe that Jesus is alive and he heals and delivers people from evil spirits even today through Archbishop Deya and his pastors. Sadly, thousands of Catholics who have found Jesus here have now left the Catholic Church to join the ever growing church – Gilbert Deya Ministeries worldwide. In Africa, Asia and South America Catholics leave to join the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in droves.
Pope Benedict XVI must look into this and come to the conclusion that evangelisation of the sacramentalised Catholics must be his next move. Conversion of the institution into the Kingdom of Heaven on earth and work in unity with the Pentecostals and Evangelical churches.