We must begin with St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching regarding the appropriate exercise of the charism of prophecy for the purposes of addressing immoral behavior (such as the evils involved in the McCarrick nightmare).   According to Aquinas, although the Old Testament prophets taught the faith and addressed moral behavior, once Jesus revealed God to humanity, the ongoing role of the prophetic charism was thereafter directed to reforming immoral behavior of the faithful.   Thus, according to Aquinas, the charism of prophecy “whose objective is to reform morals, does not cease, nor will it cease.”

With this ancient teaching fixed in our hearts and minds, we can then turn to Vatican II’s texts to update this ancient teaching in light of Vatican II’s teachings as to the actual role of the laity in the life of the Church.  Here, we must start anew with Vatican II and resist the temptation to nostalgically recall the great reformers in our Church history as they all historically preceded the ecclesiology and pneumatology of Vatican II.  Indeed, even the great reformers like Catherine of Siena lacked what we now have – a robust theology of the laity which provides us with the authority to lead in moral reform and not just speak to the Hierarchy about their moral failings as outsiders.

In short, Vatican II’s teachings firmly entrust the laity to not only sanctify the outside world, but to concomitantly sanctify within by sanctifying all members of the Church.  Although the Church understandably emphasizes our lay Apostolate in sanctifying the outside world, the texts of Vatican II provide lay Catholics with the authority to sanctify members of the American Church, including our hierarchy.   We need to fulfill our lay duty to sanctify the Church, from within, precisely so that can fulfill our lay duty to sanctify the world since McCarrick remains an impediment to evangelization.

Moreover, the hierarchy cannot, in good faith, oppose our moral reform since the hierarchy failed to usher in an era of truth when the McCarrick scandal finally broke in 2018.  As someone who had warned my fellow seminarians about their predatory bishop sending notes of affection signed “Uncle Ted,” and was specifically worried about the grooming of two of the priests numbered in the McCarrick Report, I had waited for thirty years for the dark closet hiding McCarrick to be opened.  But when the dark closet hiding McCarrick was finally opened, in 2018, we did not get to see McCarrick revealed in the light of day.  To put it into Pauline imagery, from the perspective of the American Church, we have remained in a state of pre-dawn darkness when it comes to McCarrick.

Thus, because the bishops have failed to give us the truth, much less lead us in experiencing the Spirit of Truth above all else, we lay Catholics must now exercise our lay Apostolate to sanctify “in the Church” itself.  (Decree on the Apostolate of the Lay People, 5).    And although the Vatican’s decision-making regarding McCarrick is beyond the scope of the American laity’s authority, what remains to be seen is whether or not we can collectively set aside our deep divisions in the American Church, eschew all convenient categories that obscure historical truths, and do what Vatican II requires of us in sanctifying the American hierarchy in light of the McCarrick component of the 2018 chapter of the sexual abuse crisis.

For the sake of McCarrick’s Wisconsin victim/survivor, we can hope that McCarrick is deemed competent to stand trial in the State of Wisconsin.   But for the sake of the future of the American Church, we can also hope that we lay Catholics are competent to do what our Tradition asks us to do in light of the McCarrick stain on the American Church.

After all, what other voting block is able to bring a worldview which fulfills principles of eternal truths going back to Plato, echoes further the concept of natural law promoted by Cicero, and presents the Truth revealed by Jesus of Nazareth through the Church’s Social Teachings?

But sadly, we are unable to do anything collectively if we remain perpetually divided.

Although many of the divisive trends in our Local Church were wholly foreseeable, such as Catholic influencers seeding confusion and division in order to increase market share, what was not as foreseeable was the speed in which too many Catholics have lost sight of the basic tenets of our Faith. How can the Church fulfill Her mission in American politics if we are fighting each other over what it means to be Catholic in the first place? As the great theologian De Lubac put it, we sometimes need to remind ourselves of Catholic teachings that are the most basic yet somehow elude our reflection as Catholics.

First, Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit. This means that we can neither question Vatican II itself, as one shocking headline of the New York Times purportedly did, nor let any one Catholic influencer assume the authority to root out so called heretics or unorthodox behavior. Believing in the Holy Spirit also entails refraining from reducing the sacred to the secular, particularly when its done to achieve one’s purely political purposes under the banner of “social justice.” As our Holy Father reminded us in a recent weekly audience, if we do not “invoke” the Holy Spirit, the Church “closes in on itself,” in “sterile and exhausting debates, in wearisome polarizations, while the flame of the mission is extinguished.” Following Pope Francis’ encouragement, we Catholic-Americans must regain the Catholic practice of invoking the Holy Spirit above all else.

Second, we believe in the Catholic Church. At a minimum, every Catholic-American should read Vatican II’s Document on the Church – Lumen Gentium. And for those Catholics who speak or write publicly, we are obliged to present God’s Church rather than our own version of Church. Thus, each side of the Catholic divide will have to purify its ranks of the penchant for promoting its narrow version of the Church for its own limited purposes.

Third, we all need to remind ourselves of our Blessed Lord’s dying wish for us to be united in God’s Peace and in unity and in Truth above all else. Every Catholic should reflect deeply and profoundly on our Lord’s High Priestly Prayer in the Gospel of St. John – Chapters 14-18. We would also de well to recall Origen’s ominous warning that “where there is division there is sin.”

Finally, if we Catholic-Americans are to remain true to our Catholic identity and contribute to the upcoming Presidential election cycle, we must more readily embrace the virtue of humility – the mother of all virtues. This will both ensure that individual Catholics understand their appropriate role in the American Church, as well as help us collectively understand the boundaries that the Church has established for our collective participation in the public sphere, as so beautifully underscored and explained in Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est.

And then, once we are intellectually and spiritually disposed, as Catholic-Americans, with guidance from the Holy Spirit, we will be ready to offer our nation what is truly needed.  Our nation and our Church deserve nothing less.

As a preliminary matter, there are admittedly many great uses of “shorthand” communications, which are enormously beneficial:  texting succinct messages, symbols for public safety, acronyms, etc.  Similarly, we all benefit from appropriate use of social media to alert us to Religious events, celebrations, educational opportunities, etc.  In fact, we appreciate the efficiency in which such short, succinct communications help us live as a connected society.

But we Catholic-Americans would do well to pump the brakes on the increasing use of “communication shortcuts” in our public discourse about fundamental and complex realities of the human condition.   I submit that these trends in communication shortcuts painfully remind us that the alacrity in which we communicate does not reflect the depth of our understanding of reality.  Indeed, we were warned of the dangers of such communication shortcuts from Ancient Greece.

In Plato’s Phaedrus, there is a dramatic moment in which the god of inventions presents his newest discovery, “letters,” to the Egyptian god king – an invention which presumably utilized the writing tablet to enable students to shortcut their communications by use of symbols on the tablet.  He boasted to the god king about this prized invention.   But the god king rebuked him and pointed out the pitfalls in such a communication shortcut.  As if anticipating the precise folly we see today, Plato has his king of ancient Egypt ominously warn us all:

Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them . . .  you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard  to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

In this regard, although we laud and embrace modern tools to assist us in communicating updates as to people, places, events, etc., we must acknowledge that our American society has becoming increasingly anti-intellectual, egotistical, and pitifully polarizing.

Thus, as we assess the carnage in our American humanism in the era of partisan politics, cable news aimed at ratings at the expense of transmitting truth, and social media usage which is simply not worthy of the language of Shakespeare, maybe we should assess whether or not we can make better use of social media and promote more meaningful public discourse?    At the very least, perhaps we need to think about whether Plato’s wisdom from Ancient Greece should give us some pause before we tweet or post on topics of consequence?

At the very least, by requiring candidates to answer fundamental questions based on Catholic Social Teachings, it will provide an opportunity to jettison “politics as usual” and allow us to get a glimpse of how those seeking the highest office in the land think about fundamental principles and issues.

Thus, ever mindful of the overriding centrality of our duty to the poor, Catholics would do well to consider requiring Presidential candidates to address one or more of the following relevant questions based on Catholic Social Teaching:

1. What is your understanding of the human person and how will that understanding affect your day to day decision-making as President of the United States?
2. What is your view of the Catholic understanding of natural law as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
3. What is your understanding of the Catholic Tradition’s recognition of the “Common Good” and how will that understanding affect the Executive approach of your Presidency?
4. What is your view of the Catholic Church’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; and please include in your response an assessment of how the Free Exercise Clause should be construed regarding Catholic Institutions such as Catholic hospitals, Catholic healthcare facilities, Catholic Universities, and Catholic Social Services organizations?

5. What is your view of the concept of the separation of the church and the state?
6. What is your understanding of the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity and describe how this principle might or might not affect the Executive branch of Government under your Presidency?
7. What is your understanding of the related Catholic Principle of Solidarity and describe how this principle might or might not affect the Executive branch of Government under your Presidency?

On the whole, we are much better suited to attempt to convey the truth of how homosexuality is lived in the Church than most laypersons as we witnessed things in the real world.  We thus can do more than merely speculate as to “homosexuals,” the so-called “gay lobby,” etc. as we know how things have played out in recent Church history. As for me, I happen to have been an eyewitness to many, many facts, including facts surrounding the McCarrick component of the sexual abuse Crisis.  Indeed, I tried to warn my fellow seminarians that their bishop was pursuing them for prurient interest and cited the “uncle Ted” signature as proof that my concerns were well founded.  So I have seen how the truly bad apples in the Church have acted.

Nevertheless, despite the many, many things that are causing confusion and division, given the manner in which too many Catholic influencers are ready to simply blame “homosexuality” for the Sexual Abuse Crisis, I think it’s worth men like me saying that although we might certainly have some opinions on how hard it is for a heterosexual male to become a Priest in modern American society, we can do so while also affirming and supporting the many great priests who have same sex attraction.

Thus, as someone who has learned a great deal in my own seminary odyssey spanning decades, but as a servant of Truth above all else, I offer the following truthful account/summary of where things stand on homosexuality and the Sexual Abuse Crisis, based on actual history from a heterosexual male’s perspective:

First and foremost, in the lived experience of our contemporary American Church (setting aside the separate issue of the role of women in the Church), every man is presumably as suited as the next man for priestly ministry, regardless of sexual orientation. The Church has yet to declare it as clearly as that or explain/nuance some of the previously used language about homosexuality; but when the dust settles, the Church will recognize that any man chosen by God to serve in the persona Christi can be the instrument of God’s Sacramental Grace and thus serve in Priestly ministry, regardless of sexual orientation.

Yes, it is true that the majority of sexual abuse as well as sexual harassment cases in the Church have been older males abusing and sexually harassing younger males.  And yes, there is some basis to take a further look into the fact there that have been some men of the Church who have shown a penchant for younger men as well as a willingness to overlook sexual misconduct of other priests, whether we end up labelling these overlapping truths as parallel realities, correlative realities, coincidences, or to borrow a term from the psychiatric lexicon, co-morbidities.

But can homosexuality as such, either as a stand-alone theory, or even a catch all category, explain the Sexual Abuse Crisis, particularly the most horrific evils involving sex abuse and rape of young boys? Absolutely not.

Simply put, the many good gay priests friends I have made over the years are no more capable of ever sexually abusing a young boy than my many good straight priests friends are capable of ever sexually molesting a young girl.

Unfortunately, many Catholics reacted in a polemical manner and insisted that the Principle of Solidarity necessarily dictated that Catholics endorse a healthcare policy that ensured insurance coverage for all Americans because we must show Solidarity with all Americans.  Some of these Catholics even insisted that the Principle of Solidarity was the ultimate, if not controlling principle, notwithstanding the many other troubling aspects of the legislation (including the foreseeable adverse effects on Religious Freedom, life issues, imprudently opting for fraud and waste, the foreseeable increased mistakes in the administration of healthcare, the virtual assurance that insurance decision-makers would employ utilitarian cost-benefit decision-making, etc.). Thus, while Congress again debates healthcare legislation, I think it’s a good time to take a closer look at the Principle of Solidarity in the hopes that committed Catholics can avoid any further distortions of various Principles of Catholic Social Teaching to support a desired outcome.

First, Catholics who dogmatically insist that the Principle of Solidarity demands support of U.S. legislation to the extent that a law ensures insurance coverage for all Americans are arguably violating Pope Francis’ warning not to apply any one principle of Catholic Social Teaching in a “disjointed” manner.  Although some Catholic teachings are more central to our Faith than others (such as the prohibition against the taking of innocent life), no one principle is to be applied in a vacuum, particularly in this case when the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity are themselves complimentary and address two different dimensions of the human experience.

Second, Catholics who mechanically insist on applying Solidarity to ensure insurance coverage of all Americans should reflect on the extent to which they are limiting the application of the Principle of Solidarity to nationalistic considerations.   Although we might feel good about supporting national insurance coverage under the banner of Solidarity, we might be interjecting an unnecessary limiting principle into the breadth of the horizontal aspect of the Principle of Solidarity.  To loosely borrow a phrase from Seinfeld, it’s sort of the theological equivalence of “stopping short.”   As Catholic-Americans, we should promote the common good here at home; but as Catholics, we should look beyond our own nation and show solidarity with all human persons with whom we have Solidarity as fellow earthly pilgrims by virtue of our status as adopted sons and daughters through Christ.

I am certainly not suggesting that Catholic principles demand that America, as a nation, guarantee healthcare for everyone much less try to ensure insurance coverage beyond our borders; but I am suggesting that we Catholics have a duty to apply Catholic Social Teaching so that all of God’s children have basic human needs met, including basic healthcare.  At the very least, particularly in light of the migration and fluidity at our souther border, we Catholics should consider whether the principle of solidarity challenges us to broaden our vision to encompass all of the Americas?

In conclusion, we Catholic-Americans must all eschew simple solutions and work together to implement an approach to healthcare that reflects the depth and richness of all of Catholic Social Teachings, which is also fair and just for all Americans.  Perhaps, if we had initially started with the Principle of Subsidiarity —  with many trial and errors behind us, and human initiatives we will never know because the particular moment has now passed — we might now be just a little closer to realizing the Catholic vision of ensuring that all of God’s children have basic human needs met, including healthcare.

At the very least, by requiring candidates to answer fundamental questions based on Catholic Social Teachings, it will provide an opportunity to jettison “politics as usual” and allow us to get a glimpse of how those seeking the highest office in the land think about fundamental principles and issues.

Although some of the questions implicate the most central and fundamental Catholic teachings (e.g., protecting the unborn despite the legal parameters established by Roe v. Wade), other questions leave some room for reasonable discussion and perhaps even some disagreement among reasonable Catholics.
Thus, ever mindful of the overriding centrality of our duty to the poor, Catholics would do well to consider requiring Presidential candidates to address one or more of the following questions based on Catholic Social Teaching.

1.    What is your understanding of the human person and how will that understanding affect your day to day decision-making as President of the United States?

2.    What is your view of the Catholic understanding of natural law as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

3.    What is your understanding of the Catholic Social Teaching approach to the Common Good and describe how your understanding of the Common Good might affect the Executive approach of your Presidency?

4.    What is your general view of the Catholic Church’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; and please include in your response an assessment of how the Free Exercise Clause should be construed regarding Catholic Institutions such as Catholic hospitals, Catholic healthcare facilities, Catholic Universities, and Catholic Social Services organizations?

5.    What is your view of the concept of the separation of the church and the state?

6.    What is your understanding of the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity and describe how this principle might or might not affect the Executive Branch of Government under your Presidency?

7.    What is your understanding of the related Catholic Principle of Solidarity and describe how this principle might or might not affect the Executive Branch of Government under your Presidency?

8.    What do you believe is the most just and fair approach to immigration in the United States?

9.    What is your view on the extent to which Congress can pass legislation which provides legal protection for the human fetus consistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision?

10.   What is your view of the relationship between humanity and the created/physical world, and how will your view of the human person’s relation to the created/physical world affect the policies of your Administration? [In your answer, it will be helpful for you to make some reference to Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si and/or his addresses to the United Nations and Congress during his 2015 Apostolic Visit to the United States].

Although the Candidates may or may not be familiar with all of the principles highlighted in these questions, Catholic-Americans who seek to fulfill their civic duty with all of the wisdom, reason and truth that our Catholic worldview brings to this process would do well to require our Presidential candidates to answer one or more of them. If nothing else, exploring these questions and principles in a genuine and reasonable manner might prove more helpful than harmful to the political process in which we all find ourselves in the upcoming Presidential election.

Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor
Freedom From Religion Foundation
P.O. Box 750 Madison, WI 53701

Dear Mr. Barker and Ms. Gaylor:

I am writing on behalf of The Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion, Inc. (an organization which seeks to engage and dialogue with non-believers from a Catholic-American perspective) regarding the proposed “model Policy” you submitted to the University of Georgia.

Although I do not purport to speak on behalf of the University, I respectfully ask you to consider withdrawing your proposed “model Policy” because the proposed Policy would actually require the University to entangle itself deeply and fundamentally into religious affairs in a manner that is qualitatively and quantitatively greater than the alleged objectionable chaplaincy anecdotes that you vaguely reference in your letter and in your website.

Specifically, through your proposed Policy, your organization is basically urging the University to make theological determinations and dogmatic pronouncements that would fundamentally and very profoundly require the University to entangle itself with purely religious and theological realities and specifically alienate and offend all but a few students who share your specific religious/theological position (i.e., that all human virtues are of a “secular” nature).  Such a religious and theological conclusion would not only require the University to coerce Christian students into an untenable religious position, but the University would also be “coercing” your atheists’ clients into an objectionable religious position as well.

For example, the proposed Policy urges the University, as a state actor, to promulgate a religious position that the virtue known as “humility” is a secular value. (See proposed Policy highlighting “humility” as a noteworthy, secular virtue for student athletes). This would require the University to make the following theological and religious determination as a matter of state policy: 1) that “humility” is a worthy and desirable attribute for student athletes/football players; and 2) the human quality known as “humility,” theologically and religiously speaking, is a “secular value.” As an aside, I am not advocating for any position relating to humility and football. For me personally, if I were a UGA football coach, I am not sure that I would spend much time talking about “humility” to my players, particularly to those playing defense – I’m personally good with “hunkering down.” But if a coach did happen to refer to “humility,” it would require an entanglement of the University into religion for him to make the theological pronouncement that “humility” is a “secular value.”

Ironically, your proposed Policy is overtly hostile towards the atheists students as well as the Christian students. Please make no mistake about one thing: Your Policy not only requires the University to impermissibly entangle itself into religious affairs, but your Policy would also require the University to take a theological position which is anathema the very student clients you purport to represent – atheists.   Although it may be comforting to your non-believer clients for the University to make the theological determination that “humility” is a “secular virtue,” such a determination would be tantamount to coercing your atheist student clients into a worldview which is as antagonistic to their core belief system as it is on the Christian student.

Although American atheists have failed to emerge as a unified social group, the atheists students who remain true to their founding principles, will vehemently object to your Policy because a true atheist student would object to having “humility” even discussed, much less made a state sponsored virtue by means of policy.   A true atheist student would follow the lead of its founding members, such as the great Friedrich Nietzsche, an atheist who took his opposition to Christian virtues rather seriously. Nietzsche rightly recognized “humility” as a Christian reality; and he vehemently opposed humility, as such, with all the vitriol he could muster.   In his Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche explicitly takes on “humility” by analogizing Christian “humility” to the actions of a worm when he observed:  “When stepped on, the worm curls up. That is a clever thing to do. Thus it reduces its chances of being stepped on again.” As fairly and aptly summarized in Wikipedia, “Nietzsche argues that the slave morality of Christianity has so infected Western culture that now even the masters view humility as a virtue” (See Wikipedia, Virtue) (emphasis added).

And as to the Christian students, the proposed Policy impermissibly promotes “unlawful religious coercion” (to use a phrase you have used) because it coerces the Christian student into the untenable existential position of having to deny the truth of Jesus of Nazareth. To the Christian student, the virtue of humility finds its deepest and fullest expression through the Christological hermeneutic. In other words, only in reflecting on the awesome reality that the Son of God took the form of a human person, humbled himself even unto death, and paradoxically, redeemed us by this act of pure unconditional love, does the Christian student fully and most reasonably comprehend the reality we call “humility.”   And although nonbeliever students are more than welcome to share in this virtue/reality and are entitled to use Free Speech Rights appropriate in a University setting to make the case (based on Kant or any other philosopher) that the virtue can be viewed without reference to Jesus of Nazareth (for them personally), it would be a violation of the Constitution for the University to adopt this position, as a theological and religious position.

Thus, please consider withdrawing your proposed “model Policy,” as it would require the University to do the very things you claim should be avoided.

Respectfully Submitted,

Charles Gernazian, Esq.

Director, Catholic-American Center on Law and Religion, Inc. (J.D., UGA, 1991)

CC: President Jere Morehead, University of Georgia

But two years later, as Catholic-American litigants such as the Little Sisters of the Poor suffer legal setbacks in the federal Courts of Appeals, we not only seem to be losing the cases at the appellate level, but we’ve somehow managed to lose the narrative as well.   One need only read the headlines to see how the Government is racking up “victory” after “victory” in the “fight over birth control.”   As we read these headlines, I think the Catholic-American non-profit litigants should re-group and not only prepare to take our cases to the Supreme Court, but make every effort to re-gain the narrative that we had when these cases started. Although we face a huge challenge, I believe we can re-gain the true narrative by emphasizing three significant points which demonstrate what’s really at stake in the HHS Mandate litigation:

First, the HHS Mandate and its entire scheme violated our First Amendment because of the manner in which it defined “religion” for the purposes of its “religious” exemptions. Although the government has somewhat modified its definitions of what is “religious” throughout the litigation, its initial attempts to limit “freedom of religion” to mere “freedom to worship” could only be construed as a hostile treatment of Catholic non-profit Institutions.   In any event, the HHS Mandate remains an unacceptable violation of our First Amendment’s right to Freedom of Religion since the HHS continues to impermissibly define what is and what is not the Catholic Faith, and thus worthy of an exemption. Or to put it bluntly, in allowing exemptions for part of the Body of Christ and not the remainder of Christ’s body, the HHS Mandate and its scheme provides Constitutional protection for some of the Church, but severs (from Constitutional protection) other equally central and integral parts of the Body of Christ — the Church.

Second, although the so-called “accommodations” have made the Government’s intrusion into our Catholic Faith a little less severe, the current regulatory scheme still constitutes an unacceptable interference into the religious domain of Catholic-Americans.   In advocating this aspect of our cause, we would do well to revisit the writings of the great Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, who arguably remains the pre-eminent Catholic-American authority on Religious Freedom. According to Murray, the United States’ Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom means that there is a religious domain into which the government should not enter. Although Murray’s work was fragmentary and non-systematic, he repeatedly emphasized that there is a “sphere” of human activity, which pertains solely to the religious domain of human activities.  The First Amendment guarantees that this religious “sphere” of human activity will not suffer from governmental intrusion. Murray thus saw the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion as a guarantee that religious activity would be immune from governmental interference; and that it would prevent the government from assigning value to that which pertains to religious activity.

Third, the HHS Mandate and the government’s approach is objectionable to the extent that it represents another example of the government taking sides on Constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and healthcare over the right to religious freedom. No one can credibly argue that the courts have an easy job in balancing all of the competing rights and responsibilities and values at stake; but it seems that we Catholics get no Constitutional deference at all.   At a minimum, the courts should take a neutral position regarding the Constitutional rights at stake.   Just as is required from judges and Supreme Court Justices when a potential conflict of interest is identified, the Justices and Judges should at least “avoid the appearance” of favoring some Constitutional rights (i.e., right to abortion, right to privacy and medical choices, etc.) over the Church’s right to Freely Exercise Her Faith in all of the Church’s Trinitarian dimensions.

In sum, despite the admittedly painful string of legal losses we have suffered in virtually every Federal Court of Appeals hearing the non-profit cases, we Catholic-Americans should literally “Keep the Faith” and artfully frame the legal issues at stake. We also need to endeavor to take the narrative back from those who relish in the headlines that suggest the cases are only about religious zealots who want to fight over access to birth control in the federal courts.   After all, there is much, much, more at stake than a fight over access to birth control.

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.