John Garvey Brings It On.

John Garvey, president of The Catholic University of America, posted a clear and moving explanation of CUA's decision to bring the HHS mandate to court. Alma mater, I salute you.

Particularly poignant is his commentary on Eleazar of Maccabee fame (if your family is unfamiliar with the Books of Maccabees, now is a good time to read them aloud!):

"A wonderful story in the second book of Maccabees describes the martyrdom of the old scribe Eleazar. It occurred during the Hellenizing campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. He forced the Jews "to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God." 


Eleazar was ordered on pain of death to eat pork. He refused. The men in charge of the sacrifice, who had known him for a long time, took him aside and offered to spare him if he would just eat something that looked like pork. "Such pretense is not worthy of our time of life," he said, "lest many of the young should suppose that Eleazar in his 90th year has gone over to an alien religion[.]" And so they killed him."

The point, Garvey says, is twofold: First, God's law is higher than the law of the state, and it is "cruel" for any government to force its citizens to choose between their beliefs and their freedom. Second, Eleazar is a witness to the communal aspect of our Catholic praxis. Whatever we do, "the young" --and I would add, those who have rejected the Faith-- are watching. Even the appearance of compromise in matters of morals is a grave sin against the spirit of the law.

Garvey also mentions the much-touted reality that a majority of Roman Catholics do not practice the Church's teaching on fertility and sex. While this is a tragedy and symptom of our human failure, however, it hardly changes the truth. Truth does not shift and change with societal norms: rather, practice seeks to conform to truth, goodness, and beauty. That's why the True, the Good, and the Beautiful are called transcendentals. They transcend the changing and shifting man-made laws.

Garvey's essay is brief, but forceful. It is a great example of the unapologetic, but nevertheless sympathetic, approach we all need to be ready to take toward the world. He does not dismiss objections. He does not call names. He doesn't even mention the leaders in government behind this mandate. He simply states who he is, what he believes, and what he must do.

Bravo.

Life of Julia 2.0

I just can't resist.

President Obama's re-election website has posted the most bizarre page, "The Life of Julia," chronicling in 12 installments a woman's life "under Obama" (his words, not mine). The entire idea is strange--is Julia supposed to represent the ideal woman? The average woman? The Lowest Common Denominator of Womanhood? Is she the prototype of the women President Obama would like to see in this country? Who is Julia?

In an effort to laugh rather than cry, here is a different story of Julia: "The Woman Who Survived."

Birth
Julia is a survivor! As the child of an African American mother who chose to give Julia a chance at life, she is one of 616,017 black children born under Obama in 2009. The other 458,400 were aborted, 98% because they were "unwanted or inconvenient," not the products of rape or incest. Way to go, Julia!

3 years old
At the the tender age of 3 still under Obama, Julia--who is also lucky enough to live with both her mother and father at this point--is put into Head Start. It's fortunate that Head Start exists, because if her parents had to pay for a private daycare in addition to working full-time jobs so that they can pay their income taxes, they would each have to take on additional work. She joins thousands of children across the country who see their parents for about three hours every day.

17 years old
Julia's parents are divorced by now, but that's okay because her health care plan covers 12 psychiatric visits per annum. She has gone to a public school since the age of 4. Under Obama she has never heard of Louisa May Alcott, Christopher Columbus, or Leif Ericsson, but she did learn how to put a condom on a banana when she was 11. The Race to the Top program is great, though, because it makes sure that no student, school, or state will start reading things like, oh, Charles Dickens too soon. Or ever. She sure can surf that web, though! Keep it up, Julia!

18 years old
She's off to college! Encouraged by the Pell Grant, which gives her $10,000 over four years, she's attending a private college that costs about $43,000 per year. Although she works for minimum wage (which Obama has raised for her!), she will be in debt until she is 62. She still thinks William Shakespeare directed Leonardo diCaprio in Romeo and Juliet. Her major surgery junior year is covered entirely by her health insurance, but she has to wait 18 months for this vital procedure since all the Catholic hospitals are closed.

22 years old
Julia is now in debt and must work under Obama. There are few available jobs in the private sector, so she goes to work for the government. Her healthcare plan will pay for her temporary sterilization, so that while she is working for the government, she won't be deprived of sexual pleasure and she "won't have to worry about her health." Julia has known her whole life that living for years on birth control really optimizes a woman's health.

28 years old
"Under President Obama, Julia decides to have a child" (I kid you not, this is a direct quote). This is just a little weird, because by now he is 79 years old. Oh, well. Sadly, she knows this will be her only child, because the insurance companies still only pay for two labor and deliveries. Julia has placenta previa, requiring a c-section, and is told that future pregnancies could cost her her life and the insurance will not consider paying for such a stupid, personal choice. They will gladly cover future abortions, because they are required to do so by law. She decides to just get her tubes tied and invest quality time in her child, who will begin Head Start in 3 years.

33 years old
I'm just going to quote from the website: "Julia's son Zachary starts kindergarten. The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama's investments in education and programs like Race to the Top." 


This is an awesome thing, I guess. She really wanted to send Zach to a Catholic school, using the scholarships available to him under Catholic Charities, but both the schools and Catholic Charities ceased to exist when she was seven. Her son Zachary will never be asked to memorize a sonnet.

63 years old
Julia enrolls in Medicare and goes to live in a state retirement home. She doesn't get Social Security, because it no longer exists, but she does get three square meals a day, lots of prescription drugs, and gets to ride electric buses for free. She is happy, because she just paid off her student loans! If she hadn't had the Pell grant, she'd still be paying!

88 years old
Under Obama, Julia has had a pleasant and basically comfortable life. She even was able to live free from all welfare programs from most of it! She has had every basic material need met and was even able to afford some luxuries using the money sent her every April in her tax refund.

Because this is what life's all about. Bread and circuses.

Right?

The drama of politics

In general, political philosophy is concerned with the distinction between the ruler and the ruled. That is, who ought to be in charge and why? How much power do various rulers have and why?

The interesting question for political philosophy, though, is whether it should be practical or theoretical. Should philosophers concern themselves with what is possible in human politics or with what is the best inhuman politics?

The divide is largely historical. Aristotle, and most philosophers of the tradition, did politics by contemplating the best human society and describing existing human societies in comparison to the best. He was not interested in directing human affairs, but in discovering the nature of human affairs.

Machiavelli (1469-1527) came along and said, no, political philosophy is a matter of finding the most effective way to get the job done. The idea of the best is impractical, because it cannot be realized in the "earthly city," as Augustine would call it. Looking at human nature is not a major concern, either, because whatever that nature is, it is clearly corrupted.

Which side you fall on depends on your answers to a few questions. Is there a human nature that has a determined best? Is there a knowable best human political associations? In other words, is there an end in human politics that humans do not create for themselves?

Without an end, or a best, political philosophy cannot be contemplative (or theoretical). There would be no ideal against which to judge the actual communities and governments we live in. Without an end that is built into human nature, politics becomes a matter of getting power in order to enforce your own, self-determined purposes. (See "ends and purposes," June 2007)

That's the drama of politics.