Persons and Due Process

The Crucifixion with the Virgin and Saint John, Pietro Perugino

 There are two things to keep in focus while reading this:

1. Person
2. Due process 
   

 In the liturgy for Good Friday (John 18:1—19:42), John the Evangelist reminds us that Caiaphas suggested earlier in John 11:50: "it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish."

 The divine person, Jesus, was made perfect by his obedience to God the Father. He is the measure against which all other persons are measured. And we all fall short, "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But I take solace in a merciful Father, a concept which was wonderfully expressed in a homily by St. John Paul II, "We are not the sum of our weaknesses and failures; we are the sum of the Father's love for us and our real capacity to become the image of his Son."

 This is a high view of the human person, and C.S. Lewis does something similar in his essay/sermon, The Weight of Glory, but he includes a warning:

Meanwhile the cross comes before the crown and tomorrow is a Monday morning. A cleft has opened in the pitiless walls of the world, and we are invited to follow our great Captain inside. The following Him is, of course, the essential point. That being so, it may be asked what practical use there is in the speculations which I have been indulging. I can think of at least one such use. It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all out dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations— these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit– immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously– no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner– no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat — the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

C.S. Lewis puts the point to it. The value of a person is worth more than value of a nation. But I understand that others will disagree with me on that point, so I'm not offering a proof, or an argument. Rather, I'm giving the reasons why I chose to leave the Republican Party on Good Friday.

For as long as I can remember, I've been pro-life. I remember reading Dr. Isaac Asimov's science essays as a teenager, and in one of them he wrote, "the human being begins life as a fertilized ovum." His essay was that of a biologist explaining biology. He was not wading into the abortion debate, but I did discover later that he was pro-choice. But this small remark provided clarity for me, because at the time, people weren't clear on the moment when an individual human life begins.

As time went on, my interest continued, and the pro-life side of the issue seemed unavoidably correct. But sadly, as it seems in all contentious issues, precious few seem to be persuaded by arguments. I was drawn into political debates, and it became clear that one major party was the pro-choice party, and the other party was pro-life. In 1980, I registered as a Democrat, because that seemed to be the default in Massachusetts, but in 1995, I registered as a Republican.

In the time since, I delved into political philosophy, and I admired the Declaration of Independence when it proclaimed that "all men are created equal." And I admired Lincoln's Gettysburg Address where he reaffirmed the principle in a concrete way. Our predecessors were flawed men, and I agree with Orestes Brownson's assessment that "they builded better than they knew." Ultimately, they had inherited the Christian view of the human person.

But on the other hand, I noticed a common theme in many historical injustices. People supporting an injustice attacked the personhood of particular people. Blacks in the antebellum South were thought to be inferior, as well as the Jews and Gypsies under Nazi Germany. And it seems that the lower views of these persons as persons were the justification for denying their natural rights. And in the present, those on the pro-choice side deny that pre-born human beings are persons with the right to life.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states,  "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteen Amendment reaffirms the principle, "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."

Recently, the Supreme Court vacated a restraining order against the deportations on procedural grounds (i.e. the restraining order was issued in wrong court), but it also stated that individuals alleged to be members of an organization designated as a terrorist organization have the due process right to contest the government's detention or their removal from the United States. In the ruling, they quoted the late Justice Scalia, "'It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings." I understand the frustration of many people about the previous administration's failure to enforce immigration laws, but this should not be corrected in the present by ignoring the human and constitutional rights of persons. And so I believe that the Supreme Court was correct in saying that the 5th entitles aliens to due process.

 I've engaged in several discussions with several people about the removal and imprisonment of Abrego Garcia. It's not about him specifically, but rather, it's his case that has gotten the media's attention (I doubt the Trump administration's allegations about him, but I have no desire to argue this in the court of public opinion or in the court of social media; rather, this should be tried in the third branch of government, the judicial branch). In each discussion, my interlocutors seemed to think that the word "illegal" should settle the matter with respect to a person's 5th and 14th Amendment rights. 

That is, their statement seems to be "illegal aliens do not have due process rights." But this doesn't seem to be the best formulation. I hope that they don't mean that illegal aliens could be imprisoned or forced into a chain gangs without the right to defend themselves in court for the crimes which they are charged (sadly, it is the case that Abrego Garcia is imprisoned in a foreign country without a trial). The better formulation would seem to be "illegal aliens do not have the right to contest their deportation."

Even then, I disagree. While "illegal" aliens do not have a constitutional right to be in the United States, they do have the constitutional right to contest their deportation. That is to say, with respect to due process, "illegal" is not an important modifier for the word "person" with respect to the Constitution. Rather, "illegal" is an important adjective regarding their privilege to remain in the country (and there are reasons why they might be allowed to remain, such as the claim to be a refugee). 

As I stated earlier, my aim is not to argue and to convince anyone. Especially now, this climate of polarization doesn't seem to be conducive toward the changing of minds. Once sides are chosen, they become entrenched. Rather, I wish to show why I can no longer remain in the Republican Party. The rights of persons should be respected in any civilized country. I cannot remain in any party that doesn't respect that, and it seems to me that the majority of the GOP does not respect the rights of Abrego Garcia and other aliens who entered the United States illegally.

I'll leave the final word to Justice Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

Father and Sons in the Parable of the Prodigal Son

Cropped image of painting: Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt, circa 1668, downloaded from Wikipedia

 Note the different ways which the characters in the Parable of the Prodigal Son address each other. The prodigal son addresses his father as "father." The father refers to the prodigal son as "this son of mine," and he addresses the older son as "my son." But the older son does _not_ address his father as "father." This may reveal the heart of each of the characters. Both the father and prodigal son refer to the other in familial terms, but the older son does not. The older son seems to be viewing his relationship in transactional terms: "look what I've done and look what he has done" rather than rejoicing with his father that his "brother was dead and has come to life again."

In the second reading (see link), St Paul tells the Christians in Corinth that God the Father reconciled the world to himself in His Son. That is, in becoming members of the body of Christ (i.e. in Christ) our relationship to God is restored/reconciled. In Christ we can be like the prodigal son and cry out, "Father!"

Whoever is in Christ is a new creation:
the old things have passed away;
behold, new things have come.
And all this is from God,
who has reconciled us to himself through Christ
and given us the ministry of reconciliation,
namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,
not counting their trespasses against them
and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."
(2 Cor 5:17-19)

Love Takes on a Cruciform Shape

Silhouette made from The Crucifixion by Pedro de Campaña (ca. 1550), downloaded from Wikimedia.

For those he foreknew he also predestined
to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29)

During my first year as a volunteer catechist, I had a group of seventh graders for religious education (usually called CCD). I was teaching about love, and the children were getting slightly unruly. We were in a classroom of a Catholic elementary school. In a moment of inspiration, I spoke in a loud voice, "Do you want to know what love is?" And I pointed to the crucifix behind me above the blackboard. And their eyes were wide open.

I'm thankful that the Mass today was actually celebrated as the Solemnity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (the priests at the chapel where the Mass was celebrated had permission to celebrate Mass as a solemnity instead of as a memorial). The second reading was from the eighth chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans. There Paul tells us that Christians are to be conformed to the image of the Father's Son, Christ Jesus. In that, Mary is a model Christian, as Simeon foretold at the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Lk 2:35-16), "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." The heart of Mary is united to the heart of her son, Jesus. In the Gospels, Jesus repeated tells us to take up our cross and follow him. Mary tells us, "Do whatever he tells you" (Jn 2:5).

Love takes on a cruciform shape. We are to unite our hearts to that of Jesus in His love for the Father. This is the vertical component. And we are to unite our hearts to that of Jesus in His love for our neighbors. This is the horizontal component.

Holy Communion, in Mass, takes on a cruciform shape. In Jesus Christ, as a Church, we become horizontally united in our worship together. We become united in Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in His sacrificial offering to God the Father. This is the vertical dimension.

Hence, the pattern of our lives begins in the Mass and is brought forth in our lives, so that we might imitate Christ in apape love. This is the source and summit of our lives, that which carries us off to Heaven in the chariot of loving fire.

The quote of Fr. Philip Neri Powell comes from his blog, Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!

My Soul Magnifies the Lord

Painting: Visitation de la Vierge by Jean Jouvenet, 1716, downloaded from Wikimedia Commons.

In some Bible translations, the Blessed Virgin Mary exclaims to her kinswoman Elizabeth, "My soul magnifies the Lord!" What might that mean?

A hint, I think, comes from Mary's question to the Archangel Gabriel in the Douay-Rheims translation, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" Modern translations direct us to its meaning that Mary was a virgin and that she had not engaged in sexual intimacy with a man. This use of the word "knowing" is paralleled in the Old Testament when describing the procreative act—the marital act—such as "Adam knew Eve" in Genesis 4:1.

Such "knowing" need not be sexual intimacy. Indeed, we make the distinction in knowing about a person (e.g. when we have a passing knowledge of a person, meaning that we know he exists and some characteristics but not much more) and a knowing which implies a friendship. In a similar way, a person may know things about God, such as the belief that God is Triune, three persons united in one nature and being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But knowing about God does not necessarily mean an intimate relationship with God—a friendship with God.

In the Canticle of Zechariah (part of this morning's Gospel at Mass), Zechariah foretells the mission of his son, John the Baptist:

You, my child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High,
        for you will go before the Lord to prepare his way,
        to give his people knowledge of salvation
        by the forgiveness of their sins.
In the tender compassion of our God
        the dawn from on high shall break upon us,
        to shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death,
        and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

The Lord prepares his way by giving them knowledge of their salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. When the Pharisees and Sadducees approach John to be baptized, he asks (Mt 3:7), "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"  Knowing that we're separated from God—in a state of spiritual death—is a good place to start in repairing our friendship with God. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10). Through prevenient grace, Mary had never lost friendship with God, but she must have realized the terrible brokenness of those around her who had a broken relationship with God. And it's likely that her awareness of the gift she had been given had brought about the feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving.

Turning back to Luke 1:46, in which Mary begins her canticle, "My soul magnifies the Lord," I think it's helpful to see other translations of the verse. NABRE has "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord." NCV has "My soul praises the Lord." NASB has "My soul exalts the Lord." The Message Bible, which follows the philosophy of dynamic equivalence in translating (as opposed to formal equivalence or a more literal translation), has "I’m bursting with God-news." And interestingly, NIV has "My soul glorifies the Lord." Again, I think all of these are helpful.

But how could a soul glorify or magnify the Lord? There is nothing any creature can do to add to God's greatness. Rather, a soul demonstrates God's glory and greatness by allowing God to work within that soul, and thus providing an example of God's work. As is often attributed to St. Irenaeus, "the glory of God is man fully alive" or in context:

For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God grew within Mary. She willingly received the Word, and in the Nativity of Jesus Christ, she gave what she received to the whole world. In using the Mother of God, the Theotokos, as a model, we can follow her example. By the power of the Holy Spirit and if we are well disposed, we may receive the Word in the Eucharist, allowing the Word to grow within us. And in participating or cooperating with God's grace within us, we can give this work within an outward expression by our charity, as Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Divine Liturgy

Image by Robert LeBlanc from blending Robert Cheaib's photo at Pixabay with the painting: Christ Crucified by Diego Velázquez

Whenever I read about the deeply flawed hierarchy of the Church Militant, I mentally insert this from Hilaire Belloc:

“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”

But of course the problem isn't merely the clergy. To borrow an anecdote about Chesterton: What's wrong with the Church? I am.

I think we all could do with a little liturgical catechesis. We first admit our wretchedness and need for help and healing: Christe eleison! Then we listen and absorb the Word within us (consuming Him!), so that united with Jesus Christ we may offer ourselves and our lives to the Father, all the while giving thanks for the transformation of our stony hearts into real hearts of flesh that we hope will beat in unison with our Savior. We really need to take the movement within the Mass very seriously, and then go forth out into the world: Ite Missa Est!

Man and Woman He Created Them

Image: The Creation of Adam (1510), from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo, downloaded from Wikimedia. The image and title are inspired by Pope Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body published as Man and Woman He Created Them.

By sharing his story, Tom Hoopes has given me a gift. I've had a similar experience which I've almost always shared as part of the story of my return to the Catholic Church, but I've not been able to connect it well with the whole of my reversion to the faith. That is, this experience, which I know is a significant part of my faith journey, never seemed to fit well with with the rest of my journey. It's been a puzzle piece that never seemed to fit in with the rest of the puzzle of my life.

In early 1995, when I had already been long lapsed in the practice of my faith, I had a similar powerful experience. Of his experience (which is similar to mine), Tom Hoopes writes, "I didn’t see any visions, feel a physical sensation, or hear an audible voice, but I remember it vividly, and it was unmistakably him." Until now, the penny had not dropped, but now, in a concrete way, I see "it was unmistakably him." In pride, I might give my intellect all the credit, but in reality it was by the grace of God. I came to the realization and knowledge that contraception was immoral. God smiled upon me.

I was tapping away on my 386 while listening to C-SPAN in the background. And on the TV, there was a talk or forum on what we would understand now to be about LGBT rights. A man, who I think was a journalist, asked a question, something like, "if heterosexuals can do it, why can't homosexuals do it?" I don't remember exactly what the question was, but it set off a train of thought that brought me to the conclusion that contraception was immoral. My first thought was a humble one, and I think that this is important to note, since it signifies the softening of my heart to an encounter with the truth. In 1995, like most or many people of that time, I could have been reasonably characterized as a homophobe. Back then, I could never knowingly have had a friendship with a gay man. The thought of sodomy brought about only a visceral reaction and it was a strong one. "Icky" and "gross" are far too weak to express my feelings. But my first thought to this man's question was "he's right!" or "he has a point!" And so I questioned: why should I consider the homosexual act to be wrong? Why is the heterosexual act okay? I thought, is marriage that which "blesses" the sexual act, so that if we allowed homosexuals to marry, then the homosexual act would be okay? Intuitively, I dismissed that as an arbitrary logical move. So I asked, why marriage? (whisper: children). What is it about marriage which makes the heterosexual act morally acceptable? And I realized that the procreative aspect is the key to understanding why the heterosexual act within marriage is morally acceptable. And on the flip side, I realized that if contraception is morally acceptable then anything is morally acceptable—for once procreation is "logically" separated from the sexual act, all judgments on the morality of consenting sexual acts are arbitrary and visceral.

My thoughts were more primitive then, but under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium, the teachings of the Church, I've come to a more mature understanding of the meaning of human sexuality. Indeed, the Church's teaching on human sexuality has been a motive of credibility for me, evidence that through the Church, a divine light shines in the world. It is as the hymn goes, I once was blind, but now I see.

The Infant in My Womb Leaped for Joy

Drawing: Mary and Eve by Sr. Grace Remington, downloaded from Catholic Link.

Sister Grace Remington's drawing captures my feeling (today and most days). If I dare, if I could, I'd have Eve represent me as a repentant sinner in the drawing. A prayer starts, "O Jesus, living in Mary, come and live in your servants..."

But there is a similar picture that comes from Scripture. This event happens immediately after the Word of God becomes incarnate in the womb of Mary. The archangel Gabriel tells Mary that her kinswoman is six months pregnant, and Mary departs in haste to her cousin. This is called (in praying the Rosary) the Mystery of the Visitation. Raphael has a wonderful painting of this event.

Painting: The visitation by Raphael, 1517, downloaded from Wikimedia.

After the news broke on the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs, I sent the following in an email to some friends (this by no means unique, I've seen similar published around the web):

Given that the majority on the court are Catholics (and the core of the majority opinion today), I wonder if it's mere coincidence that the opinion was released today, on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Even more, today's solemnity displaced the Solemnity of the Nativity of John the Baptist (which is ordinarily celebrated on June 24th). This is appropriate, as John said, "He must increase; I must decrease" (Jn 3:30). In Luke 1:39-44, when mother Mary enters Elizabeth's house, John leaps for joy in his mother's womb at the entrance of the newly conceived Jesus within the womb of Mary.

As mercy pours out of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, I thank our heavenly Father for all the gifts we've been given, including the gift of life, and for those who embrace it, the gift of eternal life in communion with the Holy Trinity. And I pray that He continues to rain down grace upon us to strengthen us for the upcoming battles, and that we unite ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

Because, I desire a change in my heart, I concluded with a couple of favorite passages in Scripture:

(RSVCE) Ez 36
26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

(RSVCE) Ps 51
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
    and put a new and right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from thy presence,
    and take not thy holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of thy salvation,
    and uphold me with a willing spirit.

Since today was a celebration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, this morning's Gospel reading finished with the line: "[Mary] kept all these things in her heart." It's something worth pondering.