To outsiders, the proposal of communion for the divorced and remarried seemsn a modest adjustment. But it has provoked adamant resistance among then faithful because it throws in doubt the basic logic of the gospel. From hern beginnings, the Church has known that the baptized, while born again inn Christ, fall back into sin, sometimes seriously so. This poses a problem.n How can the adulterer, murderer, or thief who draws near to Christ inn reception of the Eucharist be doing anything other than uniting himselfn with Christ as a sinner, not as one delivered from his sins? And if we cann be united to Christ as sinners, the promise of the gospel isnfalsified, for that promise tells us that union with Christ delivers us from sin.
n Historically, the solution was to develop a theology of penance andn reconciliation. This allows us to say that the penitent adulterer unitesn himself with Christ. As penitent, he comes as one who seeks deliverancen from his sins. In the Catholic tradition, confession (reconciliation)n becomes a distinct sacrament that prepares the soul for reception of Christn in the Eucharist. Confession is not a sacrament for most Protestants.n Nevertheless, in some forms of Protestantism there are traditions of publicn confession before a saving profession of faith in Christ. Protestantn liturgies also often include a corporate confession and pronouncement ofn Christ’s absolution preceding the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And so,n the ecumenical consensus holds that the promise of the gospel—that unionn with Christ delivers us from our sins—requires renunciation of our sins inn one form or another. This is what prepares us for sacramental communionn with Christ in the bread and shared cup, a communion of those beingn delivered from sin rather than in bondage to it—which is to say, communionn in the gospel.n
n Many regard as unobjectionable the changes in church discipline to allown civilly divorced Catholics who have remarried to regularly receiven communion. It seems to them a reasonable accommodation to the unfortunaten reality of widespread divorce. But this change disrupts the logic ofn penitential preparation, which maintains the truth that union with Christn delivers us from our sins. Under the proposal, marriage is not permanentn and a remarried person is not committing adultery. Or adultery is not an serious sin. Or Christians have always misunderstood the gospel, and wen need not renounce our sins to unite ourselves with Christ. The logic forcesn us to affirm at least one of these fundamental changes in Christiann doctrine. We can’t evade this unpleasant prospect by saying that “we’re alln sinners” or that the Church is not the “Church of the pure,” as Popen Francis has on many occasions.n
n The proposed pastoral approach does not purport to solve theologicaln problems by clarifying which of the three prongs is being decisivelyn altered. It simply muddies things sufficiently to obscure then contradictions. This evasion of explicit change follows a post–Vatican IIn pattern, which has been one of ad hoc accommodations to contemporaryn sensibilities, undertaken in the context of the collapse of an oldern scholastic theology that supported precise analysis and clear conclusions.n The theological culture of today’s Catholic Church lacks rigorousn philosophical discipline. A great deal of theology now runs on evocativen and free-floating concepts. Pope Francis uses “mercy” in this way.n
n The general trend away from theological clarity and toward muddled gesturesn encourages a technological approach to the spiritual life. We often hearn that the truth that God transcends our human capacity to know means wen can’t have firm and clear knowledge about anything that matters for ourn salvation. Or we’re told that the truth of Christ must always be expressedn historically, and thus it must take a new form in our era. These and othern false truisms turn the Church’s sacramental life into a plastic resource ton be deployed and redeployed to encourage “spiritual growth”—or worse, ton promote an atmosphere of “inclusion.” Instead of God coming to us in andn through Word and Sacrament, we use the “Christian tradition” to engineern our way toward him.n
n The proposal to provide communion to Protestant spouses raises othern difficulties. St. Paul teaches that through the cross of Christ, God hasn overcome division and made us one body. With characteristic confidence inn God’s power to make real that which he promises, Catholicism has insistedn that this oneness is objective, not “spiritual” in the sense of simplyn being a matter of shared beliefs or sentiments. Unity is visible, notn invisible. The community gathered around the shared Eucharist serves asn both the most powerful sign and most perfect realization of that unity.n
n For this reason, Catholic sacramental theology has treated as obvious an fundamental discipline of the altar. Those who receive the Eucharist mustn be in visible unity of faith, doctrine, and discipline. Put moren succinctly, those who receive communion must be in communion; otherwise,n the sacrament of the Eucharist is contradicted in its very enactment.n
n Again, the current proposals for pastoral accommodation run against coren theological convictions. Including non-Catholics in Eucharisticn celebrations on a regular basis teaches by action that visible membershipn in the Catholic Church is not necessary for unity in Christ. Of course,n some remarkable exceptions aside, this always has been the Protestant view.n A stream of Protestant theology holds that the one, true, and apostolicn Church is not defined institutionally. It is made up of those who share then same saving faith in Christ and profess true doctrine, wherever they mayn worship. This runs counter to the Catholic view, which affirms sharedn apostolic doctrine as a mark of the Church but also regards the historicaln succession of bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome as an essentialn element of the body of Christ. Thus, according to Catholic teaching, to ben united in Christ requires membership in the body of believers who live andn worship under the supervision of a bishop in communion with the bishop ofn Rome.n
This institutional dimension of Catholicism has deep theological roots.n Years ago, while studying the Council of Trent, the authoritative Catholicn response to the Reformation, I came to see that the council mirrored backn to Protestants their most potent charge, which is that Catholics rely onn their own “works” rather than trusting in the promise of Christ. Then fathers at Trent did not dispute the solus Christus premise of then Reformation. Instead, the Tridentine response chides Protestantism forn limiting the power of God’s love. When Jesus says to his followers, “I willn be with you until the end of the age,” he meant to be true to that promise.n The visible Church and her sacramental system incarnate Christ anew. Thisn is why Catholics often use the word “Church” where Protestants typicallyn say “Christ.”
n This can seem like a juridical, ritualistic mentality to an outsider. Butn for Catholicism, it underlines the theological truth that God’s kingdom isn not one of sentiments, feelings, or even orthodox dogmas. It is a real,n living body, a polis or city with its own principles, laws, andn leaders. To invite non-Catholics to receive communion on a regularn basis—especially non-Catholics who could easily enter into full communionn with the Catholic Church—blurs the Church’s boundaries, which are essentialn if the body of Christ is to have visible, enfleshed form rather thann becoming a projection of our spiritual imaginations or a creation of ourn religious fellowship. Over time, the blurring of boundaries “spiritualizes”n Catholicism. It erodes confidence in the objectivity of grace and the powern of God in Christ to claim territory in the world—and in our lives.n
n We are made for fellowship with God. This is a common Christiann affirmation. But in the Catholic tradition, it is taken up with boldness,n leading to the confidence that God has already consecrated a people. Then people of God are not incapable of sin, but they are called to dwell inn God’s household here and now. We don’t just proclaim his divine Word; wen see, touch, and serve holy things. We naturally seek to walk upright in then Lord’s presence, bringing not just an inner spirit of love, but alson outward behaviors in ritual forms that accord with his promises. Thisn ambition, which is falsely described as “pharisaical” or “legalistic,”n reflects the Tridentine genius of Catholicism, which grows out ofn confidence in the power of God’s love, not supine obedience or vainn attempts to earn divine favor. St. Gregory of Nazianus said of then incarnation, “That which is not assumed is not redeemed.” This applies ton us, as well. He comes to us in the flesh; we follow him in the flesh.n Catholicism’s sacramental objectivity (which has analogues inn Protestantism) is rooted in this fundamental truth.n
n Priests serve; technocrats manage. The integrity of the Church’sn sacramental system is today threatened by the instrumentalization of sacredn things. In good Jesuit fashion, this trend toward pastoral technocracy isn being justified as an emergency measure, a necessary means to shepherd then people of God in our disintegrating age of failed marriages and erodedn religious boundaries. The sentiment is understandable, even honorable, upn to a point. But as a theological program, it is perilous and must ben resisted. For we live in a time that tempts us to believe that nothing isn sacred and everything is raw material for this or that project of humann design.n
n Speech Codes
The University of Michigan set up a “bias response team.” It was establishedn to respond to and manage “bias incidents.” The university administrationn considers the team part of their larger efforts to create “a respectful andn welcoming environment for all to live, learn, work, and thrive.” A Michigann advocacy group, Speech First, filed suit, claiming that conservative viewsn were not welcomed and conservative students could not thrive under then aegis of the Bias Response Team. The Trump Justice Department is backingn the legal challenge, which claims that the university’s new policiesn violate constitutional protections of free expression.
n A “respectful and welcoming environment” is an admirable goal. But then university’s bureaucratic and regulatory efforts aren’t likely to work veryn well. Respect and welcome require social virtues and functional norms. Whenn virtues are hard to find and social norms break down, legal and regulatoryn agents replace them, seeking to restore a modicum of enforced order ton dysfunctional human relations. This, in turn, creates grievances andn counter-grievances in a litigious atmosphere.n
n We’ve seen this happen in domestic life. More than fifty years ago, socialn norms about male–female relations, marriage, parental responsibility, andn autonomy were clear. Those norms were enforced by the informal mechanismsn of honor and shame. The sexual revolution called them into question. Theirn power eroded and collapsed. The result: an expansive body of “family law”n that did not exist two generations ago. Legal control fills the void.n
n Something similar is happening in higher education. I’ve spoken to a numbern of recent graduates. They tell me that the first thing one learns aftern arriving at college is not to say what you think. Apparently, the risingn generation of otherwise intelligent and ambitious students cannot discussn moral, political, and religious questions without fear of being hurt, ofn hurting someone, or of being punished for hurting someone.n
n I’m not sure why this has happened. Maybe the poisonous ethos of socialn media infects their face-to-face interactions. Maybe universityn administrators have conceded campus culture to the shrill voices of then most psychologically unstable and damaged students. Maybe the metaphysicaln poverty of our professoriate has turned debate into assertions of power.n
Or maybe the causes go deeper. Just as domestic and intimate relations weren deregulated decades ago, so now with social and civic relations. Thesen days, well-educated, high-status adults have terrible manners. Theyn text-message while ordering lattes, treating those who serve them asn nonentities. They think nothing of hurling epithets and obscenities. TVn hosts toss f-bombs. Former president Barack Obama lionizes foul-mouthed rapn stars whose songs are full of verbal aggression. Our current presidentn specializes in derogatory put-downs. Meanwhile, the once staid andn restrained liberal establishment brims with accusations of racism, fascism,n Nazism, and other crimes. These terms serve as flame-throwing verbaln assaults meant to kill careers.
n In these circumstances, something like the University of Michigan’s biasn response team becomes inevitable. In conditions of inter-human dysfunction,n people look to the authorities for relief. They want liberty, yes, but theyn want ordered liberty, not hostility, rancor, and the war of all againstn all. They demand regulatory and legal control when social control breaksn down, and rightly so.n
n This is why libertarianism makes so many false promises. The moren rigorously the utopian dreams of libertarianism are pursued, the weakern social controls become. The result is not freedom, but instead ann environment of disorder and dysfunction in which regulation and bureaucracyn grow ever more powerful. We are free to fashion meaning for our own livesn these days, much more so than we were when I was young. We can even definen ourselves as male or female, if that suits our fancy. At the same time, wen live within a web of regulatory restraint that grows tighter and tighter.n
n In 1973 or 1974, in our middle school hallway, a classmate escalated an long-standing conflict with one of my friends by spitting out an particularly pointed epithet. On impulse, my angered friend bloodied hisn nose. Teachers immediately intervened. Gripping my friend’s arm withn painful force, one of the teachers asked him why he’d hit the other kid. Hen told the teacher what had been said. The teacher’s grip relaxed, and thoughn he marched my friend to the principal’s office for discipline, it was clearn by his changed manner that he approved of my friend’s violent response.n After school, I learned that the principal had chastised my friend butn given him a moderate punishment of a week’s after-school detention.n
n The libertarians are not the only utopians. Progressives also participaten in magical thinking. They imagine a world with no boundaries to protect, non honor to defend, and no norms whose enforcement requires punches. Thesen sorts of people run our universities. And they wonder why young studentsn today are incapable of ordering their common life in sane, sensible, humanen ways.n
n Mary, Seat of Wisdom (continued)
In the last issue, I reflected on how the Virgin Mary’s virginal purity cann illuminate the intellectual life. She embodies a perfect humility, as well:n “Behold, I am the handmaiden of the Lord.” Like purity of heart, thisn virtue characterizes a life of truth-seeking. John Henry Newman writes,n “Good thoughts are only good so far as they are taken as means to an exactn obedience.” There is no intellectual integrity when the words “I want”n dominate our thinking. We should seek to form our intellects in obediencen to what is true, not what serves our interests, allays our fears, orn reduces our anxieties. The all-demanding ego must be tamed. Humility turnsn us away from me-centered thinking.
n Self-doubt is a quality any bright person should cultivate. By that I don’tn mean doubting one’s abilities, as if we must pretend that we’re not capablen or talented. Nor am I commending a crippling skepticism that shrinks fromn strong truth claims. Instead, reminding ourselves of what we don’t known helps us attain a proper and healthy self-doubt. Know-it-alls are not justn bores; their intellectual arrogance inures them to new knowledge andn insulates them from salutary criticism.n
n In my experience as an academic, I was struck by the arrogance of my fellown professors. We tend to treat the genuine insights of our disciplines asn sufficient and comprehensive. (Psychologists, evolutionary biologists, andn economists can be particularly egregious in this regard.) Or we imaginen that our expertise licenses us to speak with authority on any number ofn topics. One colleague used to write foreign policy diatribes on the basisn of his expertise in ancient Roman military history. That’s not a bad idean in itself, but he spent no time learning contemporary details, confidentn that his knowledge of ancient strategy gave him the intellectual Rosettan Stone. The best minds cultivate humility. A brilliant physicist knows manyn things, but he knows that he does not know all things, which is why, evenn if he’s at the top of his field, he relishes learning about art history orn political theory from people he readily acknowledges know more than hen does.n
n A proper self-doubt deflates the authority of academic pedigrees andn credentials. We should keep in mind St. Paul’s warning: “Knowledge puffsn up.” Expertise does not make one wise, or even interesting. The mostn tedious people at dinner parties are usually academics. We hold forth. I’mn reminded of the joke about a Harvard professor who took a bright graduaten student to lunch. After talking for thirty minutes, he caught himself andn apologized, then prompted his student, “I’ve talked too much. Why don’t youn tell me what you think about my work?”n
n Speaking to the Father, Jesus observes, “You have hidden these things fromn the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” Very often then learned can’t see the forest for the trees. The active politician can known a great deal more than the political philosopher, even though he lacks then technical education necessary to put his insights into the best and mostn useful forms. We must not lose sight of the fact that expertise with wordsn and concepts—something rightly prized among intellectuals—is not the samen as knowledge of reality.n
Listening is the active form of proper self-doubt. Some people are son corrupted that their statements are not worth our consideration. However,n most seek truth. We can learn from the Virgin Mary to listen and ponder then meaning of what others say. This kind of listening is especially necessaryn today, when political polarization discourages us from seeking to draw outn the truth in political or moral views that seem rebarbative.
n Recall the words of Jesus: “Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infantsn you have perfected praise.” Often people don’t really know what they aren saying. Even when spouting wrongheaded opinions, they speak truths byn accident, as it were. This is not surprising. As a species of evil,n falsehood is a lack or privation of the good, which means it alwaysn piggybacks on some element or shred of truth. So it pays to pay attentionn to what people say, parsing their words and sifting their opinions.n
n The difference between the merely clever and truly wise turns on the Mariann virtue of pondering what others say. Those who don’t listen tend to becomen more and more enclosed in their own ideas. They are often lousy writers andn teachers, too. Not paying attention to what others think, they don’t known their audience.n
n Truth comes from the outside. It can come through books or lectures. Thesen are focused moments of listening. But we choose our books and select ourn classes. This is perhaps why, in my experience, the most important momentsn of insight come in conversations. One rarely gets fully formed ideas, andn certainly not “theories,” from these unplanned moments. But then unpremeditated, uncontrolled nature of conversation can bring unexpectedn insights. My own thinking has been deepened and redirected by the strangen and even shocking things people say.n
Silence is still another way of cultivating humility. As Josef Piepern observed, “To perceive is to listen in silence.” In a certain sense, ofn course, this is tautological. You can’t listen while you’re doing then talking, as my wife sometimes reminds me. But what Pieper means by silencen is an interior quietness, a stilling of the grinding gears of the argumentsn and counter-arguments we often formulate in our minds while reading orn listening. The Dominican A. G. Sertillanges wrote, “We do not know veryn well how the mind works; but we know that passivity is its first law.”n Interior silence cultivates passivity, stilling the motors of the soul. Asn with the Virgin Mary who humbled herself to receive God’s Word, thisn interior silence allows our intellects to hear a truth from then outside—which is where that which we do not know resides.
n Prayer, whether spoken or meditative, is a discipline of humility. Itn silences the chattering of me-centered existence, which is essential forn the intellectual life. Prayer must be central to our intellectual lives.n This is the case not just because we should consecrate everything we do ton God’s service, but also because we desire to be overshadowed and takenn captive by truth.n
while we’re at it
♦ A study shows that only the children of the wealthy conform ton stereotypical patterns in which girls dominate as English pros and boysn rule as math whizzes. The explanation? The “paradox of high-earningn parents.” According to the New York Times (“Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math”), those who are well-educated and wealthy “are more likelyn to say they hold egalitarian views about gender roles. But they are alson more likely to act in traditional ways—father as breadwinner, mother asn caregiver.” This mischievous behavior sends subtle messages to theirn progeny, leading the girls to underperform in math as compared to the boys.
n This fascinating claim implies a bit more than the reporters imagine.n Consider this argument:n
n 1) With greater wealth comes greater material freedom to act upon yourn desires.n
n 2) With greater education comes greater critical consciousness and freedomn from generic social stereotypes—which is to say, greater psychologicaln freedom to identify and act upon your desires.n
n 3) Add the reported fact: The most wealthy and well-educated Americann couples tend to fall into traditional sex roles when it comes to work andn child-rearing.n
n Therefore, given 1) and 2), the reported fact suggests that, on average, what menn and women really want is an updated form of traditional sex roles.n
n ♦ During his campaign, Trump said, “Our country is being run by very, veryn stupid people.” I increasingly agree. “Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math”n suggests a number of things, none complimentary of our ruling class. Then first is that the rich and powerful people who run our country are eithern so mindless that they don’t recognize that what they say about men andn women does not accord with their own patterns of life—or they are fecklessn cowards who fear the slightest transgression of political correctness. Onen way or another, they shirk their main cultural responsibility, which is ton articulate norms that help ordinary people live in accord with theirn natural desires. That’s especially important when it comes to the alwaysn difficult work of being a good husband and father, a good wife and mother.n
n♦ I’m also impressed by the fact that the writers who wrote the story for the New York Times are so ideologically blinded that they can’t graspn the implications of what they are reporting on. Either greatern education does not liberate people from prevailing opinion, or menn and women naturally desire traditional marital complementarity, at least ton some degree. Lack of native intelligence is not the only source ofn stupidity. In fact, it’s the least decisive. More common is a brainless,n mechanical mentality that confuses today’s truisms with actual truths andn turns away from inconvenient realities.n
n ♦ Which brings me to Connecticut. In the state track finals in June, twon sophomore boys who call themselves girls took the gold and silver in then 100-meter race. It was the second year in a row for the runner-up. He wonn the girls’ race last year as a freshman. The high school track associationn running the meets has little choice in the matter. Connecticut’s staten government interprets its anti-discrimination laws to include “gendern identity.” Some parents are upset. They’ve circulated a petition andn collected signatures. A trans activist responded, saying that this sort ofn response is “discriminatory” and wrongheaded. “We can’t just assume thatn these athletes are winning because they’re transgender. It’s possible thatn they’d be beating these other student-athletes if they were cisgender.”n Roughly translated, maybe these boys would be beating the other girls ifn they were actually girls—which is to say, if they were someone else. Asn Trump said, our country is being run by very stupid people.n
n ♦ In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform included a plan to defer andn in some cases forgive student loans for young entrepreneurs who start newn businesses. The underlying assumption is neo-liberal, bipartisan, andn implicitly Randian: The future of our society depends upon unshackling then creative energies of the talented. The common good is best served byn helping the winners win. I can only wonder that people wonder why ourn political establishment is failing.n
n♦ The myopia has other dimensions. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Jon Kamp reported on the homelessness problemn in Philadelphia, where drug trafficking has reached crisis proportions. Hen offers the usual analysis, courtesy of the National Law Center onn Homelessness & Poverty: “Homeless encampments have become common sightsn around the U.S., with numbers exploding in the last decade due to risingn housing costs and stagnant wages.” Rising housing costs and stagnant wagesn explain the gangs of feral youths in San Francisco who shoot up in BARTn stations, the tent cities in Seattle, and the dramatically increasingn number of people living on the streets? This is magical thinking. It’sn painfully obvious that the causes stem from our laissez-faire culture,n which has led to dysfunctional families, self-destructive behavior, and then breakdown of basic moral norms among the most vulnerable of our fellown citizens.n
n ♦ The first stanza of Elizabeth Jennings’s poem, “Euthanasia.”n
n The law’s been passed and I am lying low
Hoping to hide from those who think they are
Kindly, compassionate. My step is slow.
I hurry. Will the executioner
Be watching how I go?
n ♦ A bunch of folks are stepping up to organize Readers of First Things Groupsn (ROFTERS). These groups offer opportunities to discuss the latest issue.n
n • n Jeff Hartline in Nashville, TN. You can contact him atn jefferyhartline@gmail.com.n
n • n Noelle and Brandon Brown in Indianapolis, IN. Contact them atn brpbrown@iupui.edu or 317-517-7307.n
n • n Daniel Barbero in Pittsburgh, PA. Contact him atn rofterspittsburgh@protonmail.com.n
n • n James Pezzulo in Hartford, CT. Contact him at jamespezzulo@gmail.com orn 860-463-2079.n
n • n Joseph Robinson in Boston, MA. Contact him at robinson.joseph.e@gmail.comn or 614-218-4448.n
n • n Samuel Berg in Madison, WI. Contact him at samueltberg88@gmail.com orn 262-498-6853.n
n • n Michael Rowe in Fort Myers Beach/Bonita Springs, FL. Contact him atn mgr3334@yahoo.com.n
n • n For those in Canberra, Australia, Mike Swan is forming a group. Contact himn at mike.swan1951@gmail.com.n
n ♦ The spring fundraising campaign was a great success. We exceeded our goaln of $500,000. Many thanks to our readers for your generosity and commitment.n Your financial support ensures that First Things remains a strong,n independent voice.n
