The Catholic Populist

Margaret Sanger led the fight to overturn the US ban on contraception

What should US policy be in regards to contraception?

Since the United States was founded on the Populism articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that is where Populists of all faiths should turn.

The Declaration of Independence cites the authority for the founding of the US in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

What are these laws?  And what can they tell us about contraception?

Natural Law is the duty of mankind to seek its teleological end, the end for which it was created.  Man’s teleological end is God.  However, according to Populist thought, the pursuit of God is the province of the Church, not the State.  In fact, the State is considered not competent to address such issues (unlike in Christendom, which did occasionally execute citizens for heresy).  Whether a man has a strong relationship with God, no relationship in God, or even no belief in God is not the business of the State.

The State opens the door of Liberty to the free practice of religion and allows the citizen to walk through.  Accordingly, the Church is competent to give more detailed directives and more thoroughly reasoned positions on Natural Law.  Furthermore, it is not the duty of the State to prohibit every possible violation of the Natural Law which, by its own admission, it has less insight into than the Church does.  Such comprehensive criminalization would result in the necessity of building a police state, which would violate the right to Liberty.

Catholicism understands its rejection of contraception as a yes to a deeper love — the love that Jesus Christ exhibited by dying on the Cross for all of our sins.

However, the State does have some insight into “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

The State’s concern is simply this: that man should be treated as an end in himself by both himself and others.

Sex and procreation form a uniquely joint role in Natural Law theory for a reason. Through sex open to procreation, the husband and wife make a gift of each other — not using each other but giving of themselves to each other and holding nothing back (a permanent, understood, chosen, full self-gift open to life).

That is the only context in which both people are being treated as an end in themselves rather than being used for pleasure. This self-gift happens to be life-giving, creating a human being that is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. In this scenario, no one (neither the child nor either parent) is using the other for their own end.

It is not okay according to Populism to use a human being to satisfy oneself rather than treating them as an end in themself. You may not enslave them, abort them, create them in laboratories because you feel entitled to them, experiment on them in NAZI concentration camps, create them for the purpose of experimenting on them via embryo-destructive research, or kill their parents. Each of these actions violates the Right to Life, Liberty, or the pursuit of Happiness.  Because these things are violations of Natural Rights, a Populist state is obliged to prohibit them by virtue of its mission.

Under no circumstances under Natural Law theory should sex be separated from procreation (or this is, in effect, using the other sexual partner for pleasure) or procreation be separated from sex (because this is creating the child in an unnatural way without their consent for the purpose of fulfilling some whim).  Contraception is a clear violation of Natural Law although it is not a violation of Natural Rights.

Now, unlike Natural Rights, which the State is obliged to protect, Natural Laws can be made illegal or not illegal according to prudential judgment. But the government should not endorse any action by recognition that specifically treats people as if they are not ends unto themselves.  The government, in other words, may take two actions in regard to contraception.  It can remain neutral by neither prohibiting it nor endorsing it — an unenforced Natural Law (these are common).  Or it could make contraception illegal.

From 1873 to 1936, contraception was illegal in the United States under the Comstock Act, which also banned pornography.  This law had garnered strong support partially due to the Third Great Awakening.  In 1936, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger won a Supreme Court decision — United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessiaries — that overturned the law.  The Courts claimed that the ban on contraception violated the free speech right of the 1st Amendment.  They allowed the ban on pornography to stand.

The ruling was a clear violation of Originalist Judicial philosophy.  However, it left the United States neutral on contraception, an acceptable position from a Populist position.  In 1960, the FDA certified the Pill for use as a contraceptive pharmaceutical to treat fertility.  All pharmaceuticals have serious side effects so the decision was controversial since fertility is not a disease.  The Pill is the only pharmaceutical prescribed to women who are completely healthy without the intention of preventing disease.  In 1970, Richard Nixon signed Title X funding, which has promoted contraception with taxpayer dollars ever since.

The US should end Title X and repeal the FDA claim that the Pill is a pharmaceutical.

That is the Populist policy.

The Poor Widow gave out of her neediness. Can we?

Jesus did not mince words.  In one of his eviscerations of the Pharisees, he said:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.  These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23)

Jesus frequently attacked the Pharisees for being legalistic and jumping through only those hoops that the Law proscribed without seeking out the spirit of the Law.  Apparently, the Pharisees were good about tithing but failed in other urgent moral matters.

Jesus, however, does not absolve the Pharisees of their tithing obligations.  He insisted that they needed to continue the tithe without neglecting the rest of their spiritual life.

What is the duty of a Catholic?

A Catholic must go to Mass on Sundays and go to Confession once a year.  Those are the legalistic requirements of Catholicism.

But it was exactly this kind of legalism that Jesus condemned.  The Church’s obligations are miniscule compared to those of the Jewish law.  However, this is by design, not by accident.  Catholic obligations are a floor not a ceiling.  He says of those who seek the bare minimum: “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Catholics — like so many others — tend to experience spiritual highs and lows.  During the highs, it seems that God is all around us and supporting our every step.  During the lows, it seems that he is distant and allowing us to suffer (which, of course, can be redemptive).

It is wise for Catholics to make resolutions when they are at the highs.  The commitments they make at the highs will be most difficult to follow through on during the lows.  But this is when following through on those resolutions is most important.  During the highs, God is holding our hand.  During the lows, we began to walk (or fall) on our own.

Of the many resolutions that must be set, one of those is how much to give to the Church.

As Jesus indicated, tithing (10%) remains the Biblical ideal for giving.  Make the decision.

I was never told to tithe.  Until I read Dave Ramsey.  Dave is a fantastic Evangelical personal finance expert who wrote The Total Money Makeover, Financial Peace University, and EntreLeadership.  He suggests reflecting on the Biblical verses that highlight the tithe as the ideal gift.

Through some mistakes in his early career in business, Dave had to declare bankruptcy.  He tithed all the way into bankruptcy court and all the way back out again.

If an Evangelical like Dave can do it, I thought, why couldn’t I?

There is never a good time to start tithing.  You have student loans on the books.  You just recently bought a car.  Your mortgage payments are so high.  You have to save for your children to go to school.  Then, after you get those things squared away, you will get to it.

That is simply the wrong way to think about it.

Our entire income and even our entire existence comes from God.  It is time to give even though it may hurt and trust Him to help take care of you.

Give God 10%.  10% before taxes are taken out.

This may call for a big sacrifice and a more conscientious approach to how you spend your remaining money (if so, I recommend the Total Money Makeover).  And that may be good for you.  The vast majority of Americans can afford to tithe and should do so.

The way to think about a tithe is something that you never had a right to.  The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.  The federal government allows you to deduct tithes.  In essence, the money you give to God is recognized federally as money that was not part of your income at all.  If the Federal government can recognize this, can you?

Tithing for a Catholic is rewarding.  It gives a sense of ownership that can enrich a person’s entire spiritual life.

Tithing for a Catholic is also fun because it helps people to determine their charism.

The general rule of thumb is:

5% to the local Parish.

1% to the Diocese (Bishop’s Lenten Appeal, usually).

4% to the Catholic Charities, Institutions, and Organizations of your choice.  Some of the classic charities are CatholicsComeHome.org, FOCUS, EWTN, and Catholic Charities.  There are so many more.  These dollars send a message that Catholics are still focused on the spiritual and corporeal works of mercy.  They build and preserve the Church.

The Church that our children receive will be the one we leave them.

God is calling all of us to imitate the poor widow, give, trust God, and find joy and fulfillment.

Give the money and you will never regret it.

Originalist Clarence Thomas Is Far Superior To Constructionist Antonin Scalia

When reporters cover the Supreme Court, they love to simplify.

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are usually simplistically categorized as the ringleaders of the “conservative” faction on the Court.

But in fact their ideologies are deeply different and in sharp contrast.

Clarence Thomas is an “Originalist.”  That means that he believes that the Constitution of the United States should be interpreted as its authors understood it.  His opinions are typically littered with quotes from the Federalist Papers, letters written by the Founders, and, most important of all, the Declaration of Independence.

The Founders viewed the Declaration of Independence as the document that set the guiding principles of the United States — a belief in “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and a belief that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, every state in the Union had legal slavery.  In other words, no one was living up to the principles that the document espoused.  Once it was signed, abolition movements sprung up in each of the states to phase slavery out of existence.  The northern states, which were more Puritan and less dependent on slaves, were much more successful at abolition than the southern states.

When the Constitution was written, it was a flawed concession to the politically necessary evil of slavery, which violated the Declaration.  Therefore, the Founders viewed the Constitution as a temporary step in a journey towards the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence.  In order for this fulfillment to be achieved, they needed a Union (represented by the Supremacy Clause, which made the Constitution a binding document on the States) and a set of policies that would gradually phase out slavery, the nation’s Original Sin.  The foremost of these was the eventual ability to abolish the slave trade.

The principles of federalism were real but were made as concessions to political realities.  Unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln had to fight the Civil War before the Populist principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence were incorporated into the Constitution via the 14th Amendment.  Article 1 states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Federalism was a critical principle to the Founding.  However, the 14th Amendment established the fact that “states rights” never trump “human rights.”

According to the provisions of the 14th Amendment and the fact that human beings assume their unique identity when they become genetically human at conception, legal abortion is unconstitutional in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court refuses to accurately apply the 14th Amendment.  The unborn are being deprived of the right to life without due process of the law.  It violates the 14th Amendment and the Declaration.

Clarence Thomas has indicated a willingness to declare abortion unconstitutional as proscribed by the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately, Antonin Scalia disagrees.

As a “constructionist” he believes the Constitution with its principle of federalism is the most critical moral document in the American founding.  He believes the Constitution should be strictly interpreted independent of the intent of its authors.

Because personhood is not defined as beginning at conception, abortion is not unconstitutional.

He believes that the Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter should simply be left to the states.

That was not how slavery was resolved.  And that is not how abortion should be resolved

At issue is the question: what is the guiding principle of the interpretation of the Constitution — the strict language of the Constituion and Federalism or the intent of its authors most clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and Populism.

Clarence Thomas is right and Antonin Scalia is wrong.

Not only is abortion not a constitutional right.

Abortion is unconstitutional.