As mask mandates at the state level begin to wind down, we seem to be faced with yet another extra-Catholica point of contention occupying many Catholics' conscience which actually does have a (remote?) moral dimension: to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.
Again, the degeneration of the point at hand into caricatures is lamentable: Are all those who choose to "take the jab" for whatever reason "scaredy-cat Catholics living in fear of a virus with a 99% survival rate?" Are those who choose to forgo it "staunch Anti-vaxxer" conspirators either opposed to or suspicious of big pharma and the New World Order?
I have friends and fellow Catholics on both sides of the aisle here. Being neither competent in bioethics or moral theology, I'll reiterate something I wrote in "Navigating the Catholic Culture War" when masking was the the issue du jour just a few months ago:
"Somewhere along the line, the whole COVID anti-masking thing became conflated with traditionalism, and the social media conjecturing became for some a parrot of leftist virtue signaling (posting photos in masks, photos of one getting the vaccine, etc). Which gets a little confusing I imagine if your in that Venn-intersection of points. Most of the traditionalists I know are also staunchly against masking as a matter of principal. It would be strange, really, at least in my sphere, if someone was adamantly pro-mask and a traditional Catholic, kind of like a non-sequitur. This may tie in with the idea of a globalist New World Order in which mandatory masking is part of the overall global agenda to vaccinate and depopulate, and that to participate in it makes one complicit in ultimately undermining liberty and personal autonomy.
Once again, I find myself just right of center on the issue: I reluctantly mask when I have to (though using it as a chin cup whenever I can) because I think they are disgusting and for the most part ineffective, and never really for extended periods of time thankfully. I hate that I can't see people's smiles or expressions. Am I willing to go to jail over it? Probably not. Call me unprincipled.
But does it undermine my Catholicism? Not that I was ever in da club the first place, but does traditionalism extend beyond the liturgy into these peripheral spheres, I wonder. Does one gain something from a traditionalist's standpoint for not wearing a mask or choosing not to get vaccinated? Or if something the Pope does is given a sympathetic gesture, does it undermine their street-cred? Is traditionalism about traditional worship and living out the virtues, or the principled peripheral items that determine one's standing? How does one make these determinations for themselves, and what if they come to a conclusion that goes against these cultural norms?"
If I had to slam a nail down on the issue at hand swirling around in these distractions, I would say the role of the conscience begins to rise to the surface so that it should at least be brought up. John Henry Cardinal Newman is probably my favorite saint to explore this existential praxis:
"Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise.... [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."
--"Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.
The queer thing about conscience is that the end choice of a moral wrestling may emerge in a different guise in one person than it does in another. This is not the justifying of things always contra to the moral law (apostasy, fornication, birth control, etc), but to the degree we have the moral freedom to "love and do what thou will" as St. Augustine said, one person's apparent 'sin' in things extra Catholica is another's clear conscience, while simultaneously not being in contradiction to the moral law.
I think Paul's words to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 8 is worth mulling over a bit here:
"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God.
"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."
But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Good "food" for thought here (pun intended)
This is the 'extra catholica' I refer to in the modern context. And as I often, at least try, to do, I want to hold up a mirror: for the staunch and faithful Catholics whose conscience compels them to forgo the jab, resist masks, and any additional accouterments that attach themselves to those convictions--how are you regarding your brother in Christ who does not?
Dig deep. Do you harbor contempt and/or judgment? Do you presume his reasons for doing so ("He must be scared. He's a blind sheeple. He's weak-willed.") Do you will his good, even if it looks different than what you have determined to be the good? Do you paint in broad strokes? Do you dismiss their words? Do you speak ill of them? Condemn them?
If you don't, I give you credit--you are doing better than I am. It is alarmingly easy to suddenly become the grimacing old woman in the pew scowling at the ill-behaved children, the lack of a veil, the communion-in-the-hand-receiving parishioner. And lest you think this has no moral consequence, remember our Lord's words:
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Mt 7:2)
I want to spare the scrupulous, for they do not need extra helpings of condemnation. So maybe it would be more beneficial to think of it in terms of energy, to which I turn to the erudite and simple-hearted St. Teresa of Calcutta:
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them."
This is what I see as the unfortunate waste of extra-Catholica issues: it's not that the issue at hand is not important or has not moral dimension, but that it siphons off what we need to do what is at the heart of the Christian life, and that is to love. I'd like to say it better than Mother, but I can't. Even in writing this post, it's not to condemn or lament, but to remind. I'm not your judge or arbiter, but sometimes we just need someone to hold up a mirror which is really all I see my role as.
In the inner sanctuary of the conscience, we stand alone before God--we do not answer to each other, to our fellow parishioners, or even the Pope. This is the existential dimension of the Christian: to make the choices--even in seemingly peripheral matters that DO MATTER--and take radical responsibility for them. The Christian life is not completely objective (it is always a sin to 'x') and not completely subjective (it is never a sin when I 'y'), but a pivoting and discerning dance between these two dimensions. Can we judge actions and sin--of course. And not only that, we are called to. Thankfully we have the moral law to make those determinations objectively, to speak the truth in love. But it is the subjective dimension--the choices of others--that may take a little more digging, a little more prudent discernment.
I don't know about you, but my energy is in short supply these days. Last year, I was completely over-extended, partly because I did not guard it as carefully for the things that mattered. I learned a hard lesson from that--to focus on the fundamental things--my faith, my family, my prayer life, my responsibilities--and not have things siphon off from what was important. Judgement, worry and anxiety, anger--these are the things in our spiritual lives which siphon off from the source the very things we need to be careful to preserve. Which is why these extra catholica issues, for me at least, have become wearisome and distracting. I love less and less effectively to the degree with which I am judging my brother. I know this, for myself, to be true. We all have to bear the judgment for our actions and moral choices when we stand alone before God, and bear account of every idle word spoken.
For me, it's a sobering thought. Maybe it is for you too?
No comments:
Post a Comment