|
Dear Friends,
In this iteration of "Notes in the Margins," I will be sharing some thoughts of an unavoidably controversial nature on a few of the issues that are swirling around as this quadrennial election cycle enters its closing weeks. But lest you think we're wading into partisan politics, let me begin with the paramount questions and work our way down to the politically contentious ones.
(I hope you will have the patience to make it to the end of this long newsletter, challenging though that might be. The printable version may make it easier. At the bottom of the newsletter, you will find an option for forwarding this to friends whom you think might find it useful, as well as an option for unsubscribing. I sincerely hope more will select the former option than the latter one.)
The paramount questions: Why are we here? What are humans for? A Christian answer might look something like this:
We are here to ready ourselves for our ineluctable entry into the infinite Trinitarian drama of selfless love, which is our destiny. (Long sentence warning) To aid in that preparation, we have been placed in the midst of a family and society not of our own making or choosing, and in an utterly fascinating and materially challenging world, which provides the beauty and blessings, the hardships and responsibilities, by which our latent and sin-crippled capacity for self-donating love might develop, preparing us to experience our posthumous encounter with the Trinitarian mystery, not as a hellish annihilation of our habitual self-centeredness, but rather as the fulfillment of a deeper longing which, in this life, we habitually refract into a kaleidoscope of personal aspirations, worldly desires, and empty distractions.
OK, well why are we here? Why the Cornerstone Forum?
The Cornerstone Forum exists to bring the immensely illuminating power of the Christian revelation to bear on the larger cultural crisis of our time, and it has taken its inspiration over many years from the anthropological work of Ren� Girard, as well as the theological contributions of what we regard as the boldest and most penetrating theologians of recent memory -- Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Jean Dani�lou, and others.
If our work is to be worthy of the distinguished pioneers who inspire it, it can hardly prescind from addressing culturally consequential issues just because they happen to be contested in the partisan political arena. We endorse no political party and no candidate, but we reserve the right to speak to matters of great cultural consequence, even when they have taken on a partisan character by having been embraced by one party and rejected by another. Not only does it go without saying that speaking out on contested issues will displease some, but the issues which are of concern to us -- those which have the most anthropological, cultural, and moral implications -- are especially polarizing. But I think even those who might not share our views on these matters will hardly begrudge us for feeling, as we do, that candor on matters of this consequence is preferable to either caution or equivocation.
Let me begin with something I posted on our Facebook page on September 3rd:
G. K. Chesterton once observed that "truth is a magnet, with the powers of attraction and repulsion."
Today it is increasingly clear -- and recent events have underscored it -- that the dividing line in the "culture wars" pits those who continue to adhere to religious and moral principles espoused for centuries by orthodox Christians and Jews and those who regard these traditions as baleful and retrograde, substituting for them moral fashions and anthropological experiments -- for the efficacy of which hardly a shred of historical evidence exists.
The magnet of truth attracts and repulses. In John's Gospel, every town Jesus visited was peaceful when he got there and rife with controversy when he left, the townspeople arguing over the answer to the implicit question his very existence posed: "Who do you say that I am?" Today's culture wars have long been -- and are increasingly declaring themselves to be -- an extension of that question. It means simply that The Magnet is at work in our midst.
There will be scandal, this we have been told. There are, of course, the scandals that lead to scapegoating while generating the myths that conceal it. But there is also, and today quite prominently, the polarizing scandal caused by the "the Magnet," by the religious tradition that exposes scapegoating for what it is. For reasons that neither Christians nor their revilers usually understand, the world will always be scandalized by the Christian message and by those who, however inadequately, witness to it. Those who try to bear witness to what necessarily causes scandal must be on guard against triggering scandals of the sort that Christians must resist. Ren� Girard's reading of the New Testament shows how Satan succeeds by casting out Satan, how the effort to rid the community of satanic elements can easily become the second coming of Satan. To tolerate evil, however, is to be complicit with it. . . . . . And so, knowing that the party's platform enthusiastically endorsed a number of things I find either morally repugnant or so anthropologically reckless as to constitute an attack on our civilization, I chose not to watch the recent Democratic convention, not wanting to incur moral responsibilities of the sort I am here, alas, trying to discharge. For, try as I did to avoid the provocation I feared the convention might be, it proved impossible not to become aware of some of its main themes. Almost every glimpse I have seen of the convention was suffused with "pro-choice" rhetoric so crowd-pleasing and morally obtuse as to border on the Bacchanalian. Twenty-five of the convention speakers defended the status quo: abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, the platform adding "regardless of ability to pay," meaning taxpayer funding. Never before has a political party so unabashedly championed the taking of innocent human life, but one speech stood out as especially disturbing and, at the same time, especially revealing. "As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously, and today, it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward." The state restrictions on "reproductive health care" were restrictions on abortion -- things like parental approval for minors, informed consent, laws against partial-birth abortion and so on. How long are we going to let the killing of unborn children be advanced by the use of Orwellian euphemisms like "reproductive health care"? Abortion is about neither health nor reproduction. And as for "moving this country forward," what, pray God, will that promised land look like if the path to it is paved with dead children? Almost a million children a year are killed in the abortion centers in this country, and those twirling the batons and leading the cheers for this regime continue to regard themselves as victims, whose "rights" are being threatened by those who recognize the real victims. What was especially chilling in this speech, however, was the phrase: "as a Catholic woman." I don't think one has to be Catholic to recognize this for what it was: an unmistakable attempt to drive a wedge into the Catholic Church in this country; to create a de facto schism: the Church, on one hand, in fidelity to the bishops, the Magisterium, and a 2000 year-old moral tradition, and, on the other hand, the "Church" made in the image and likeness of the sexual revolution on matters of both the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage, singing out of the hymnal officially approved and distributed by Caesar. Nor are such things occurring in a vacuum. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed because of the government's recent substitution of "freedom of worship" for the freedom of religion guaranteed in the U.S. constitution, meaning that only those activities which exclusively employ, and exclusively serve, members of a particular religion are to be free from state interference. Every totalitarian system since the French revolution has attacked two things: the institution of the family and traditional Christianity, whose quintessence in the West is the Catholic Church. No one likes appearing to be an alarmist, but these are not hysterical predictions; they are ongoing developments. Thousands of unborn children are being killed every day, and religiously inspired social programs are facing a choice between going out of business or violating their longstanding moral principles. These are not ordinary times. . . . I am painfully aware of how potentially "scandalous" the foregoing might be, and I have chosen to risk scandal of the kind we should avoid in order to witness to that which is necessarily scandalous to "the children of this age." I sincerely apologize for any offense I've given. I saw no honorable alternative. To atone for unnecessary offense, I will close with a few words from my friend Giorgio Buccellati, writing in the current issue of Communio, which I posted on our Facebook page on September 7th. He invites us to raise our eyes and see the bigger picture with the eyes of faith. "Jesus has come to open the world, but the 'closed' world has not received him. ... He becomes the world of nature being born as human, he becomes the world of culture being present in the bread and the wine that 'our hands have made.' The Logos-in-the-world, the God enfleshed (son of Mary) and incultured (son of David) transforms the world, makes it a new creation by absorbing it into his own holiness." . . . . . Thank you as always for your interest in our work and especially for your prayers and encouragement. We will continue to try to live up to the trust you place in us by supporting our efforts. With gratitude and affection, 
Gil Bailie  
 |
