All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie. . .
— W. H. Auden, “September 1, 1939”
Until President Obama proclaimed his “accommodation” last week, I never was certain what Auden meant by “folded lie.” But suddenly there it was. To fold is “to bend over or double up so that one part lies on the other part.” The obviously exasperated president didn’t even bother to come up with a good cover story. (One could almost hear him say, “Who will free me from these turbulent bishops?”) The new lie (“accommodation”) was hastily folded over the old lie (“this is all about a woman’s reproductive freedom, and it won’t hurt your conscience a bit”). So he bent over and then doubled up two lies, and then blamed Republicans for making the HHS diktat a “wedge issue.” And so, petulantly, angry at having to tell yet another whopper to those oafs clinging to their God and their guns, he began a new era in American politics.
This is indeed something new, although it resembles something very old. The radical Left, in every country in which it has gained power or influence, ever since the French Revolution, has wanted to dismantle, destroy, marginalize, or make impotent the Roman Catholic Church, which, at its best, has always stood athwart Progress (not “progress”) shouting “Stop!” Unlike many of my friends, I have never believed Obama is a Socialist or a radical or even a left-winger. He is, instead, a classic political adventurer, a true believer only in the Imperial Self, unhindered by doctrine or dogma, willing to channel the myths of whatever ideological fantasy allows him to gain power and then hold it. He chose the statist myths that appeal to the Left because they are now, as they have always been, no matter what rhetoric is chosen to disguise the fact, about the will to political power through control of or influence over the coercive power of the state. All in a good cause, all for progress and, er, progress, y’know, but still, one can’t do good unless one has, er, state power.
But Obama has been until now careful to disguise his contempt for those who disagree with him. His frequent calls for “civility” have always smacked of the disdain the Left feels for the great unwashed: One is polite, one tries to be civil, but, really, who are these people?
But now, in a moment of breathtaking, brazen over-reach, he finds himself in a fight he never believed would take place. Who, after all, would have believed the Catholic bishops, old, celibate men, their authority weakened by the manner in which they dealt with the homosexual sex scandal, scorned by the major media, not listened to by the vast majority of Catholics concerning the church teaching on contraception — who could imagine that these . . . these . . . people . . . would say “No!,” not once, but twice, to the Imperial Self? The White House, the New York Times, the entertainment industry, the mainstream media, radical feminists, and esteemed Catholic lay theologians like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Mikulski all said “Yes!,” as did the liberal Wall Street fat cats whose big bucks made New York state safe for same-sex marriage. This was a slam dunk for Obama. Obama shoots . . . he scores. Game over. As it is written, so it shall be done.
But the bishops, just about the most unfashionable group of old guys this country can produce, said no. Twice, yet. And so we have a battle Obama, by his calculations, should win.
I wouldn’t bet on it, Mr. President. And I’ll tell you why — and I bet you never learned this at Harvard Law:
In the fourth century, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, stood contra mundum against the world of emperors, (including Constantine, his sons, and Julian the Apostate), the well-organized Arian movement led by the charismatic Alexandrian priest, Arius, and even many frightened or misguided orthodox bishops. The struggle, as Athanasius wrote, was “for our all.” Was Jesus divine or not divine?
That was the question. The Arians said Jesus was highest point of creation, but not God. Athanasius said that from the beginning the Church believed and taught Jesus was God. After decades of exile, being hunted in the desert by Imperial troops, after murder of his allies, especially the desert monks, after a thousand folded lies and various forms of treachery, he won. It wasn’t easy and he was no model of civility (the nicest word he could find for his opponents was “Ariomaniac”). But he won and saved the Church.
The American Catholic bishops now are contra mundum, but it is a different world they confront. It is the world of secular radical leftism and its religious fellow travelers. It is the world of big Hollywood money, big Wall Street money, and the infinitely folded lies of the New York Times, the networks and the clueless gang at MSNBC. Even if the bishops map out a strategy including everything from prayer to mass civil disobedience, it will be an uphill struggle. But, in a constitutional sense, they will be fighting for our all. They have said No, and in doing so have taken the first step on the road back for those who do not believe the folded lie.
— William F. Gavin is author of Speechwright and a former assistant to Sen. James L. Buckley.
Oh please. Do yourselves a favor. Don't fight any wars on my behalf.
And by the way. The American public agreess. This is from a CBS/NY Times poll:
"The poll of American adults asked: “Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?” The answer was: Support 66%, Oppose 26%."
It's 61-31 in favor when asked about religious institutions.
This is over. The radical right doubled down on this issue and is losing and will lose. Health insurance belongs to the employer, not the employee. That's true freedom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" their authority weakened by the manner in which they dealt with the homosexual sex scandal"
Dude, the scandal was not caused by priests having sex with other men. The scandal was caused by priests raping children and bishops covering it up and moving them to new parishes where they could continue it. Your weirdly distorted description of it suggests to me that you still haven't come to terms with the gravity of what happened.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for making this point. I made it several comments earlier, and there are two responses that further dig in on the idea that this was not a pedophilia scandal. Distortion, indeed. Sad and scary for anyone with kids being raise in the RC church, if this view is shared by the American Catholic bishops.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent post.
I'm no Catholic, but this sure has the ring of The Right Stuff to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was an excellent read!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecontra mundum
Under the Sun, the difference between brilliance and stupidity is viewed to be the outcome.
If the Holy Roman Catholic Church wants to be freed from what was attempted (I am on the side of the HRC), she ought to get out of trying to influence the government (the very same government of the mandate) from mandating other things against all of us.
Ron Paul, an Athanasius, a Cassandra or a Sisyphus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBarack Obama is the very epitome of the liberal totalitarian impulse.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis post is over the top in a Godwin's law way (blogs end up comparing those they disagree with to Nazis).
Obama wants to charge Catholic employers $50/month to cover a drug that the Pope says Catholics shouldn't use but most (maybe not 98%, but clearly most) sexually active Catholic women use or have used. Catholic employers are already complying with similar rules in many states, including the one Romney used to be Governor of.
Nobody is telling Catholic women to take birth control pills.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a lovely piece--nicely done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, Arius wanted to deny that Jesus was fully human--he posited a divine soul in a human body. Rather like, my theology prof said, a Rolls Royce engine in a Volkswagen body. This was a critical point of theology--without being human in mind, body and spirit, Jesus could not have fully healed us from the disease of sin and the consequence of it--death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOdd that you would choose Athanasius as a model. He after all, just like Obama was in search of power. Instead of choosing the state he chose the church. If you look at actual historical records of his time and not the church's sainthood says it was clear that he was more of an administrator, a thug, and a murderer.
The truth of the matter is that Athanasius didn't save the church. It was still divided over the issue of the trinity several centuries later. What saved the church was the impending muslim invasion. It was either unite, or die. They chose to unite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, basically, centuries ago, the impending Muslim invasion was what united The Church. Now, it is Obama. Are you equating Obama to the impending Muslim invasion?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, God can fashion a human body with "stuff" He created ex nihilo but he could not fashion Himself a human body ex nihilo.!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJesus, in order to pay for our sins, had to live the perfect life as a man. Birth onward. Then his torture death by the most multicultural and pragmatic (Roman) and religious (Jewish) powers, while totally innocent of doing any evil during a full human life, paid for us. That's what the Bible says and the birth by Mary makes sense as such.
Who wants your agreement? Go, go on, live your life. Oops. You will not be content until you regulate away Christianity from real life: wherever government is you want "a wall of separation" and government is everywhere...so the First Amendment is nullified. You have inherited a morality built upon Christianity: persecute it as you will, but when the good becomes illegal you will find that all you reap is corruption, decay and death. Go for it.
Conversely, what I find laughable is that Catholics, who totally support taxes and regulations and government social engineering of all types (immigration, anyone) well beyond the scope of the Great Commission are now posing as fighters for freedom. Still, this sort of Catholic cheerleading is to be expected at NRO (per Buckley) and it's best to just skip sipping your drink until you finish the whole article.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, yeah, maybe. But how about another take. Maybe, thru Machivelian forethought or just luck President Obama gets an issue to grandstand. The rule covers not just contraceptives but abortifawhatchacallits. I think there's a big difference there, but what people are gonna pick up on is birth control. Birth control is a wedge issue within the Catholic Church. I dont think too many protestant anti-abortion groups are ready to flock to the ramparts to thwart the Pill. But for a good many influential women, reproductive rights are the main pillar of women's equality, and this issue will fire them up. Meanwhile, the bigger argument over Obamacare gets sidetracked by a squabble over mandated rubber machines in hospital bathrooms? Yeah, ok, this issue can be used to highlight the intrusive, arbitray,coersive, hidden and potentially corrupt consequences of nationalized healthcare. But for now, many are maybe seeing the Republicans as against birth control and aligned with a corrupt catholic hierarchy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that this post just jumped the shark.
Are we really to believe that the Catholic Bishops are standing "contra mundum" because they are opposing "secular radical leftism and its religious fellow travelers" or "big Hollywood money, big Wall Street money," etc.?
The people that the Catholic Bishops are actually standing against include the following: (1) the 98% of Catholic women (and probably a similar proportion of Catholic men) who don't agree with the Church's teachings on contraception; (2) the MAJORITY of Catholics who agree with the Obama Administration's policy; and (3) the VAST MAJORITY of Americans who also agree with the administration on this policy.
You may believe -- unlike the majority of its own parishoners -- that the Church is right, and you may consider it irrelevant that the majority of Americans, Catholics, etc. disagree with the Church on this. But to suggest that this is all about the "radical left" or "Hollywood" is just plain ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought Kurt Vonnegut was dead? Anyway, your 98% number was debunked by the very institution that performed the study. In order to arrive at the number you would have to consider ALL Catholic women in the equation, but the study itself confined it to women of birthing age between 15-44. Also, simply because the VAST MAJORITY of Catholics and VAST MAJORITY of Americans (I contend that there is no way to know this, but I digress) agree with Obama does not make the VAST MAJORITY correct. I seem to recall that many Leftists loved to warn about the "tyranny of the majority" and here it is a Lefty is stating that because the VAST MAJORITY agrees with the position we must adhere to it. I would disagree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo by your logic, since 100% of Catholics are sinners, the Church cannot stand against sin?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it extremely offensive that this commentary refers to the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church as the "homosexual sex scandal." What a cruel way to treat the victims (children) of this scandal; the perpetrators are sick individuals and the children are victims, not willing participants, as "homosexual sex scandal" implies. The subtle and false equation of homosexuality with pedophilia is likewise wrong and harmful. If this represents how the American Catholic bishops view the tragedy of pedophilia in the church, Lord have mercy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the vast majority of the individuals abused had reached puberty. This means that it technically was pederasty, not pedophilia. There is a distinction between the two. Problem is, everybody knows what pedophilia is and not many know what pederasty is. Plus, pedophilia is obviously viewed much worse (no, I am not giving an excuse, both involve abuse). The wordsmiths in the media know this and that is why it has been labeled pedophilia.
Second issue, the overwhelming percentage of those abused were also male. All Priests in the Catholic church are also male. Sex between men is considered homosexual sex. The reason some call it a "homosexual sex scandal" is because that is the type of sex that homosexuals engage in.
The Bishops that either covered up the abuse or enabled the abuse were obviously wrong (as were the abusers). This scandal started many years ago when seminaries started admitting homosexuals. Granted, if you are celibate, it doesn't matter. I believe the evidence would show that this problem with homosexuals was known well before they started abusing our children.
The other issue was the psychiatric counseling and then return to the ministry. The Bishops used a temporal solution for a spiritual problem. They were told by the counselers that the offenders were "cured". They should have been sent away to a monastery and never been allowed near another child (after they served their time doing some "prison ministry").
There were many mistakes made. There is no recompense that will ever make it "right" for the victims. You can't even assist in Sunday school now without taking courses (6-hours of training) and you can't take the course unless you have been in the parish for almost a year. Basically, everybody is watching everybody else now. Many would say that is too little, too late. The reality is, the problem came from homosexual priests engaging in homosexual sex with young men (above puberty). That is why some call it a homosexual sex scandal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse