As we approach the upcoming Presidential election, in which “American Greatness” or “American Exceptionalism” will undoubtedly be referenced from the campaign trails, perhaps we Catholic-Americans would do well to take a breath between news cycles and collectively reflect on who we have been as a nation and what has made us great. And more specifically, I submit that we can reflect back on our nation and see philosophical, political and social realities that have brought out the best in American’s citizens despite our admitted failings along the way.

Overall, in looking back into our history, despite the sins of the past, I believe that we have been a good nation because:

1) philosophically, we believed that we could recognize truth as such;

2) for the most part, we organized ourselves politically and socially with the recognition of natural law; and

3) existentially, we were able to live out our lives, metaphorically speaking, in a post-Copernican manner.

TRUTH:
America has been a nation which knows that there is objective truth. Philosophers call the recognition of truth, as such, “epistemological realism.” And although our Founding Fathers did not explicitly adopt epistemological realism, they embraced this philosophy wholeheartedly when, in the Declaration of Independence, they proclaimed that we hold certain truths immutable and eternal. In other words, there is a truth and it is not tied to us; and although this truth exists independent of us, it holds us up and shapes our reality nevertheless.

Simply put, we Americans believe in objective truth and reject competing philosophies which suggest that either the individual or the majority can ultimately serve as the arbiter of truth. Thus, in stark contrast to Marxism, which ties truth to the historical and political realities of scientific revolutions; in contrast to European pluralism and relativity, which holds the tolerance of other’s belief in their own truths as superior to any claims to truth as such, we Americans (at least in the past) have insisted on recognizing an objective truth which exists independent of our desires and transcends all other considerations. As stated so perfectly by Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence: We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident!
Thus, philosophically speaking, we have been and can remain great to the extent that we remain faithful to our philosophical foundation – the acknowledgement that certain truths exist eternally and go beyond all secondary and tertiary reflections – and these truths come from God and these truths are self-evident.

NATURAL LAW:
Although the Founding Fathers did not mention the concept of “natural law” by name, they nevertheless readily embraced the notion of a transcending and governing universal law that provides coherence and a roadmap independent of, yet always available to, the human person. We Catholics call this reality natural law.

Indeed, as the Founders grasped intuitively, we can discern reasonably how to act because we can ascertain those laws that come to us naturally. We can therefore know some truths naturally in our minds because these truths were first written in our hearts by our Creator. And although the Founding Fathers were indisputably influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers, they adopted a vision of natural law that suggests that we can know how to act and behave because the eternal law of God can be known to the human person through the unique gift of human reason.

Arguably, few persons have grasped the reality of natural law better than the great Martin Luther King, Jr. It was nothing less than the eternal platform of natural law that enabled him to firmly stand on the higher moral ground than those racists who had him jailed in Birmingham. With natural law as his fundamental support, therefore, he was able to boldly and prophetically declare the God given right to violate peacefully any law that violated the God given natural law — a law which declares that all people are created equally and deserve equal protection under the law.

THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION:

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI taught, just as the human race had to accept the Copernican concept that the universe does not revolve around the earth, each person who wants to move past narcissism and selfish desires has to experience, in existential terms, a sort of “Copernican revolution.”

Paradoxically, we Americans have been great collectively to the extent that we lived our individual lives in a post-Copernican revolution manner. In other words, despite the ever present temptation to act selfishly, for the most part, we have opted to respect our neighbor’s inherent value and reciprocal ability to share in all the benefits and all of the responsibilities that flow from American freedom.

Perhaps no one had captured the American vision of freedom any better than Samuel Adams who, just a day before the official signing of the declaration of Independence, declared: “For my own part, I ask no greater blessing than to share with you the common danger and common glory.”

In conclusion, we Americans should reflect on our past sins, but also reflect on the extent that we have achieved goodness, if not greatness, by recognizing our unique combination of philosophy, politics and basic human decency. In doing so, we simultaneously honor our nation’s heritage, face our many mistakes, but become better prepared to offer this nation’s vision to the younger generations and to the many immigrants who seek to join us in our American enterprise. And thus, by embracing and in turn passing on the true foundations of our greatness, may we then enrich and perpetuate a little while longer this risky yet ever so wonderful historical experiment we call America.

Click here to open a video of the event.
(Flash Player required)

At a minimum, it does not appear that our Freedom of Religion claim is getting the kind of deference and respect as do other Constitutional rights. Thus, many Catholics are asking whether or not Religious Freedom is becoming de facto a second class Constitutional right, particularly when one compares our First Amendment Right to Freely Exercise our Religion with the manner in which the courts and the Administration treat other asserted Constitutional rights.

To illustrate this point, I would like to briefly share what I have professionally observed throughout my legal career – that whenever a party in a case asserts a Constitutional right, the judges and lawyers on both sides of the conflict acknowledge the importance of showing due respect for the Constitutional right at stake. We lawyers often refer to this extra legal protection under the Constitution as the “cloak of Constitutional protection.”

In the civil context, journalists get the “cloak of Constitutional protection” for the Freedom of the Press — and rightly so. In the civil context, persons who have been discriminated against based on race get a “cloak of Constitutional protection” – and rightly so. Indeed, in the criminal court system, many criminals are set free and serious charges are dropped because of concerns for the Constitutional rights of all Americans who might face criminal charges – and rightly so. But when members of the Catholic Church assert a legitimate Constitutional right, we do not seem to get the level of Constitutional protection or deference as do others asserting other Constitutional rights.

In conclusion, despite the critics who suggest that the bishops are merely trying to impede access to birth control, there are many important legal issues at stake relating to the HHS Mandate. One legitimate concern is whether or not our Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion is getting the same Constitutional protection and deference as are other Constitutional rights. As an insightful Jesuit Priest concludes (in Spanish): “El Mandato que desmantela el manto de proteccion” de los Catolicos!” (“The Mandate dismantles the mantle of Constitutional protection for Catholic Christians”). Whether or not this might be a bit hyperbolic, it is fair to say that we seem to be getting the second class treatment.

Although one of the hallmarks of your Presidency is tolerance and respect of all persons, I respectfully want to inform you that your recent comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, albeit well intended, offended me very deeply and profoundly as a Catholic-American.

Even assuming your references to the Crusades and the Inquisition were intended to contextualize the current crisis regarding ISIL, your remarks were nevertheless offensive to me and many fellow Catholic-Americans because such historical reminders invite a backward looking approach into human sinfulness rather than looking to our Catholic Faith for a positive and hopeful approach to ending acts of violence committed in the name of religion once and for all.

Thus, despite the complexities and admittedly sinful components of many, many episodes in Church history, I invite you to consider the reality that despite its sins, the Catholic Church has actually offered a way forward, which should guide all religious persons of goodwill, including the many peaceful Muslims, who rightfully condemn the use of their faith to justify barbarism, rape and murder. And so just as we Catholics look to God as our priest prays for God to “look not on our sins, but on the Faith of the Church,” we Catholics similarly ask you as our President: “look not on our sins” but what we have to offer as a path forward towards peace and good will for persons of all faiths.

I respectfully ask you, therefore, that rather than looking to the papacies of the Crusades, look to the papacy of the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, whose papacy is marked by “joy” and “peace.” Pope Francis is uniquely qualified to engage in true dialogue with persons of the Muslim Faith.

Instead of referencing the Inquisition, please look to the Church’s 20th Century Teaching on Religious Liberty. One need only look to the last Ecumenical Council, which is the Church’s most definitive teaching about the issue, to find the hermeneutic by which all persons of good faith should view non-believers. Vatican II not only recognized the sins of our past, but unequivocally reaffirmed the truth that religious liberty leaves no room for force. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (12) states:

Although in the life of the people of God in its pilgrimage through the vicissitudes of human history there at times appeared a form of behavior which was hardly in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel and was even opposed to it, it has always remained the teaching of the Church that no one is to be coerced into believing.

Concededly, our Muslim brothers and sisters do not have a self-correcting mechanism similar to our Ecumenical Councils, or even one spiritual leader such as the Pope; nevertheless, all Muslim leaders of good will can affirm the principle that “no one is to be coerced into believing.”

And lastly, instead of referencing Church history as a means of contextualizing the current crisis of evils done in the name of religion, please look to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address, when he referenced history in order to provide the intellectual groundwork for a permanent solution to the problem of evils committed in the name of God. Although his Regensburg address was misinterpreted by many, it’s not too late to pay attention to his roadmap out of this nightmare: the human capacity to embrace Reason. Just as we Christians must vigilantly and consistently use Reason as the barometer by which all our ecclesiastical actions are judged, Muslims can similarly ask themselves whether or not it is reasonable to assume that the God of Abraham would want a practicing Muslim of today to commit violence in His name against another human person — even if that person is an infidel?

In sum, Mr. President, please look not on our sins, but look to what our Church has to offer going forward. Please look not into Her past failures, but look to Her present principles, which can guide all men and women of faith into a future of goodwill, tolerance, and peace.

Charles J. Gernazian, Esq.
Director, Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion, Inc.

Of course, one might ask what could the Catholic Church possibly have to say about “change” in American political life? Well, for starters, we Catholics should have something to say because few institutions, if any, know more about change than the Roman Catholic Church. In our collective experience, we have realized that although many things change, indeed must change, the essential revelation of Jesus of Nazareth is everlasting and will not change. As a community of believers, therefore, the truth that makes us who we are as a Church, our integrity as the People of GOD (emphasis on God) must not, and cannot, change.

We have learned, however, that historical and social changes are inevitable. And we have specifically learned that change is never simple or easy; and in order to effectively manage change, we must first ask what precisely do we want to change and what do we want to remain unchanged. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, “Change is not good in itself.”

In applying the Pope’s insight into our own situation, we need to assess what precisely do we Americans want to change as we face historical challenges that appear overwhelming. I submit that the ultimate question regarding change as we move forward in these uncertain times, which should guide and help frame all secondary issues involving change, is as follows: Are we a nation whose greatness is founded on eternal and everlasting principles OR are we a nation whose greatness rests on our collective achievements and material prosperity?

To put it more concretely, do we want to become more and more secular, thereby losing sight of the unique capabilities and talents of each individual child of God? Do we want to embrace moral relativism, thereby eschewing the recognition that the rules of fair play and justice have objective roadmaps?

We would do well instead to heed Pope Benedict XVI’s insights as to change as we should first and foremost struggle “for the relatively best possible framework of human coexistence in our own present day and, in doing so, to preserve anything good that has already been achieved.”

As we examine our current crisis, therefore, we should strive to preserve the good that has already been established in this great land. We should preserve the notion that there is truth and that God has given each person dignity worthy of protection. We should also preserve the concept of natural law in that we acknowledge each person’s basic needs of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by a Creator and as such are inherently deserving of legal protection.

We should also seek to preserve the political and economic realities that have shaped our greatness. Although somewhat more difficult to preserve in a global world, we should renew and explore how the principle of subsidiarity might shed light on many challenges we face. We should also examine our economic system and practices and counterbalance individual greed and excess, and meaningfully enforce our anti-trust and securities laws. But we would do well to preserve what has worked well for us in the past, particularly in light of Pope John Paul II’s recognition that although pure and unchecked capitalism without regard to the human person should be avoided, capitalism as a means by which private property and positive contributions of persons and businesses can be captured is fully compatible with natural law.

And as we preserve what is good, and proceed cautiously into the unknown, let us not simply get caught up in change for change’s sake, especially when it encompasses a radically new path for all of us. As history shows us, a path that summons change of the entire existing structure to make way for a non-specific new, as we have recently seen in some of the cruel regimes of the Twentieth Century, is the path of radical change that cannot reverse course.

As for this Catholic American, although Gospel challenges and transformation is always needed in any society, I do not believe that we need to strive for wholesale change of our entire identity. That’s not what we Americans do.  One revolution is enough for a nation when it is done correctly the first time.

Rather, we Catholics should lead the nation forward, mindful of Pope Benedict XVI’s warning to watch out for radical calls for complete change, but preserving what has been established as good and worthy of respect in these great United States of America.

Charles J. Gernazian, Director
Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion

– Pope Benedict XVI, DEUS CARITAS EST, 28

As a Catholic-American, the most frustrating thing about watching our Catholic public officials in action is that they undoubtedly fail to capture, much less present, Catholic insights that might be helpful to our American society at large. A prime example of a missed opportunity is that Catholic members of Congress have utterly failed to raise an aspect of Catholic Social Teaching that is particularly instructive in the current healthcare debate – the Principle of Subsidiarity.

As a preliminary matter, given the anti-Catholic bias in many circles, I must point out that the Catholic Church has no desire to gain power over the State, or even impose its teachings on those who do not share our Faith. Nevertheless, the Church offers her various social teachings, such as the Principle of Subsidiarity, as guiding principles in order to do Her part to promote reasonable dialogue and to make the Church’s own contribution toward the common goal of a just solution to social issues such as healthcare.

The Principle of Subsidiarity, which has been an integral part of Catholic Social teaching for over a century, states that only things that need to be done at the national or “federal” level should be done by a “federal” government; and allows for things that can be done at the local or smaller level to be done at the more local and smaller units of society. Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons can address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is best to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need some flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances.

As with all things Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI describes it best when he summarizes the Principle of Subsidiarity as “the coordination of society’s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities.” As if he were acutely aware of the genius of our American system (i.e., a system which has successfully balanced federal, state and private initiatives for over two hundred years) the Holy Father observes that the principle of subsidiarity helps governments at the national level “attune themselves to the natural human desire for self-governance.” The Holy Father most recently pointed out that the principle of Subsidiary prevents a completely dehumanizing and “all encompassing welfare state,” which inevitably leads to a form of “paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.” (Caritas In Veritate, 57, 58)

Thus, the Principle of Subsidiarity can serve as a guiding principle in the Healthcare debate because it comports with our American history of governance and provides a means by which we can somehow find a middle ground between an all encompassing welfare state and a laissez fare system with no safety net for its citizens.

Moreover, the Principle of Subsidiarity provides a refreshingly non-partisan principle, as it is rooted in the common good and thus ultimately transcends political affiliations. If nothing else, the Principle of Subsidiarity offers a means of discussing healthcare in a non-caustic and principled manner. Whether we are really in a “cultural war” or not, we could use a guiding, non-politicized criterion upon which we can ground true dialogue and reasonable discussion about healthcare. Because it is a guiding principle rooted in natural law and the common good it necessarily eschews simplistic slogans and avoids the temptation of prioritizing votes and reelections over principles and justice.

Furthermore, applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to healthcare can also help local communities and smaller governments better coordinate their healthcare issues with other societal issues such as generating sufficient revenue for other societal and human needs. Some local communities might coordinate their approach to healthcare with their approach to immigrant workers who not only thankfully provide value and enrich their communities but obviously greatly increase societal costs such as healthcare.

Although I do not propose to have a prediction as to where the dialogue will end, I do submit that if we apply the Principle of Subsidiarity to healthcare issues, we will most fully ensure that competition in the marketplace, human and charitable initiatives and creativity can all flourish. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, when those responsible for the common good allow people to govern themselves and address their own problems, those public officials “leave space for individual responsibility and achievement.”

In sum, the Principle of Subsidiarity should serve as a guiding principle in the healthcare debate. I submit that the Principle of Subsidiarity can serve as our national GPS, pointing out the roads to the countless groups of Americans, who through their genius and hard work, given their own local and unique realities, will yield successful results, true and genuine reform of our healthcare system, meaningfully address the healthcare needs of persons of all ages and illnesses, and yield surprising and innovative solutions that an all encompassing welfare state simply can’t produce.

Charles J. Gernazian
Director, Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion, Inc.

Once upon a time in our Catholic tradition, we intuitively grasped that Faith and Reason were good, if not best, friends. And these friends not only relished each other’s company, but flourished in the other’s presence. We had great sayings to capture the natural relationship such as “Lex Orandi, Lex Creendi” — we believe as we pray. In fact, John Paul II even devoted an entire encyclical to this foundational relationship of our Catholic journey — Fides et Ratio.

Although Faith always preceded and directed the search for Reason, Reason was always seen as the natural completion of Faith lived out in our human history. Indeed, Reason helped clarify and strengthen our Faith and Faith reciprocated by offering Reason the very authorization and encouragement to explore truths of the universe from disciplines outside of theology. As with any healthy relationship, each respected and affirmed the other without ever asking the other to be more or less than what it was – each was true to itself and true to the other.

Given this great relationship in our Church’s history, Pope Benedict XVI recently reminded Catholic Educators that “every Catholic Institution is a place to encounter the living God who in Jesus Christ reveals his transforming love and truth.” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI: Meeting with Catholic Educators at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 2008). In short, the Catholic Institution is first and foremost a place where students encounter the Living God who is not only the way and the life, but the truth. All intellectual pursuits have their very purpose and authority rooted in this fundamental reality.

Thus, what should set a Catholic Institution apart from any secular institution is that it recognizes the intrinsic and everlasting connection between the Truth as revealed by God in history (Faith in God’s Revelation) and all the secondary and meaningful discoveries about truth through the many wondrous methods of human thought and intellectual pursuits which shed further light on Truth itself (Reason).

Despite the common misconceptions, it does not necessarily follow that we Catholics want to deny sociological, scientific, psychological, legal, medical or any other recognized academic disciplines their due. Quite the contrary, in the great tradition of towering intellects such as Origen of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, we strive to learn all that the sciences and any other discipline can tell us as all truths can help us learn just a little more about ultimate Truth, which is revealed though Jesus Christ. To the extent that all truth exists in Jesus Christ we have been given full revelation through Him. Yet we also recognize that much remains unknown and perhaps will remain unknown and unknowable until the Second Coming or perhaps during our own journey into heaven. This tension gives Reason even more of a prominent role in our salvation history.

But as the Notre Dame episode has made painfully clear, the relationship between Faith and Reason, particularly as it was articulated by our Holy Father during his recent trip to America, is in serious danger in Catholic-American universities such as Notre Dame. Specifically, if you listen to the approach taken by many Catholics to the Notre Dame issues, albeit with good intentions, they assume that the old friends of Faith and Reason are not always on the same page anymore. Of course, they do not talk about Faith and Reason as such, but they nevertheless reveal their bias against Faith when they speak of abortion as if it were merely another intellectual issue in which reasonable persons might differ.

Indeed, Notre Dame serves as Exhibit A in support of the possibility that the longstanding Catholic approach to Faith and Reason in the university has been de facto replaced by an approach which is quite different in fundamental respects. Under this modernized understanding of a Catholic University, a Catholic University becomes first and foremost a place of academic learning; and in order to preserve its position among secular universities, it must emphasize that its rational and academic approach is devoid of ecclesiastical shackles. Although these folks often invoke phrases such as “academic freedom,” “plurality of thought,” and other convenient slogans, they all presuppose that Reason and Intelligent pursuits should not be slowed down by the inconveniences of our Dogmas and Teachings lest we lose academic standing among the elite institutions of higher education.

This is the theological equivalence of the Seinfeld “it’s not you… it’s me” routine. For in the name of Reason and Academia, they are basically saying: “don’t take it personally Faith, you aren’t so bad – but I can’t be tied down – it’s not you, it’s me . . . I’ve got to be free to do and say things in the world of the intellectual elite and I just can’t do it with you around – so it’s not really you, it’s me!” Thus, in order to justify a university’s status among the intellectual elite, it believes that it needs to give a nod to modernity and prove that its forward thinking allows for discussion even when those discussions might be inconsistent with the Catholic Faith.

Unfortunately, the disintegration of the Faith-Reason relationship in the University is more than just an academic struggle over approaches, but implicates the very nature of what it means to be Catholic. This became apparent for all to see when President Obama, a champion of the anti-Catholic approach to abortion, was dignified with a degree from a Catholic Institution. Here, we saw the huge consequences from the break-up of Faith and Reason in action: a person can take the most fundamentally non-Catholic view–to support the taking of innocent human life through abortion–and yet be honored, cheered and even given a degree by a Catholic Institution, all in the name of modernity, academic freedom and plurality of thought.

Perhaps it would have been less regrettable to honor a pro-abortion person had the university at least paid lip service to preserving some union of Faith and Reason. But the reasons given for awarding a pro-abortion person an honorary degree were so imbued with a rational approach to our Catholicism, that they actually paved the way for the award’s recipient to readily dismiss our Faith’s approach to Human Life altogether. The scene will be impressed on our memories for quite some time — Catholics on hand enthusiastically cheering as a pro-abortion President rhetorically and passionately demonstrated a very reasonable approach to an “issue” to which reasonable minds might differ.

Meanwhile, the very Faith which prompted the University in the first place was not only absent amidst the burst of enthusiasm, but Faith’s absence was hardly even noticed.
Charles J. Gernazian
Founder and Director
Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion, Inc.