Has The Federalist Gone Mad?

        The Federalist is nominally supposed to be a magazine presenting a conservative viewpoint. However, I have begun to question that premise. I already commented the other day on an article that suggested that the murder of a young woman by an illegal alien was grounds for easing immigration restrictions. Today, we have an article on the current crises within the Catholic Church that argues that the Catholic Church's problems arise from its efforts to fight human nature!

      In "The Catholic Church Is Losing Its War On Human Nature", Robert Tracinski makes two arguments to support his contention it is losing the war on human nature, and specifically, addressing the root causes of the current pedophile and homosexual scandals to hit the Church. First, he argues that the Church's "attempt to suppress human sexuality," and more particularly, requiring priests to be celibate, is warping priests. He writes:

 More specifically, when you try to repress sexuality, it tends to come out sideways. Those who have no concept of a healthy sexuality will tend to develop an unhealthy sexuality. Hence the concentration within the church hierarchy of men with a sexual preference for children and teenage boys.

But we have no statistics on what percentage of the Catholic clergy is homosexual, or if they formed their homosexual attraction after becoming priests. What we are presented with, instead, is a cabal that assisted one another in obtaining power in order to advance their predations and protect them from consequences. That, in and of itself, is not proof that celibacy leads to "an unhealthy sexuality." Conversely, Hollywood stars and executives certainly are not celibate, yet it would be hard to argue that they present an example of "healthy" sexuality. If anything, unhealthy sexuality appears to be a consequence of someone who has to go to greater and greater lengths to get a dopamine hit from their sexual activity.

        While I don't believe that there is any doctrinal support in the scriptures of the practice of celibacy, the scriptures do demand a certain amount of self control when it comes to sexuality which some could view as repressing sexuality. Thus, I see Tracinski's argument as indirectly attacking more general rules on morality and chastity.

       Tracinski's second argument addresses the Catholic Church's claim to authority. He states, in this regard:

       One other factor virtually ensures the corruption of the whole organization: the Catholic conception of its institutional authority. The distinguishing feature of the Catholic Church, and its central conflict with Protestantism, is the idea that it is not merely the ideas and values of Christianity that are necessary for man’s salvation, but the institution itself.

        Priests in the Catholic Church are not merely men who have studied religion or distinguished themselves by their example of virtuous behavior. They are supposed to enjoy a special metaphysical status as God’s representatives on Earth, acting in persona Christi, “in the person of Christ,” and according to the Vatican II conference, “partak[ing] of the function of Christ the sole mediator” between man and God.

        Yes, well, clearly that’s not working out. And how could it possibly work out? The Catholic Church is attempting to invest a literally god-like, otherworldly infallibility in an earthly institution run by fallible and corruptible men. So of course this organization will attract and promote the kind of men who like to wield power while being shielded from scrutiny. This is the fundamental problem of making an institution synonymous with an idea and of equating devotion to that idea with devotion to specific people.

He continues:

But the Catholic Church, by asserting its authority as the literal voice of God on Earth, calls on its followers to suppress their private judgment and cultivate a habit of mental obedience. Back to Vatican II: “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium,” that is, the religious authorities. This is what makes believers into a “flock,” that is, into sheep ready to be preyed upon by a wolf in priests’ clothing.

       I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about the details of the Catholic Church's doctrine on this matter. My general understanding is that the priests are supposed to act as an intermediary between God and man, or to intercede with God on behalf of someone, premised on special authority ("keys") given to Peter and, from thence, passed on through the ordination of the priests. (The LDS Church asserts a somewhat similar claim to priesthood authority and power, although we believe--I believe--that the priesthood authority had been taken from the earth and later restored through the ordination of Joseph Smith). It is not the institution that is necessary for salvation, but the ordinances and rites (together with faith and a whole lot of God's grace!). Christ said we must all be baptized with the water and the spirit, but it is also clear that not just anyone can assume the authority to baptize or confer the Holy Spirit. (See, e.g., Acts 8 and 19 and the events described in those chapters).

      Tracinski's stratagem is to attack the Catholic Church's claim to authority by substituting the institution for the priesthood authority. In essence, he suggests that the evil is not within the evil men who infiltrated the organization, but that the real evil is the claim to authority; that the fault is not with the men who went rogue, or those that covered it up, but with the idea that anyone could possess special authority from God. Obviously, that someone acts with the authority of God takes some degree of faith, so Tracinski then turns to attack the idea of faith. He takes the position that it is axiomatic that reason must displace faith because, otherwise, "we will be guided by authority figures who have given us little reason to think they deserve that kind of trust." He adds:

Traditions and institutions may have value, but that value has to be judged by our own thinking. To follow them in the absence of rational scrutiny, or in defiance of rational doubt, is to let yourself be led to an unknown end by men whose character you refuse to investigate. History provides plenty of examples, both religious and secular, of how this leads to grief.

If Tracinski is so ready to throw traditions and institutions under the bus because of the acts of a small cabal, then he is, by definition, not a conservative.

       In any event, I reject Tracinski's assumption that reason must trump faith. Religion is an act of faith. It cannot be otherwise (unless you have been shown the divine such that there can be no doubt--and God help the Judas that has seen and yet rejects or turns away). But faith and reason need not be mutually exclusive. The Lord didn't teach us to blindly accept anyone that professed to teach in his name, but to beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. He chastised the Jewish leaders of his day because they had seen the evidence of the coming of the Messiah, but could not (or would not) piece it together to reach the obvious conclusion. He expects us to use reason and intelligence in the practice of our faith, but reason and intelligence does not, and cannot, replace faith.

       It is also important not to confuse the agent for the master, especially where the servant acts in derogation of the master's will. The fault here is not that of the Catholic faith (which has clear stances on moral issues) or God, but of the persons who acted as wolves or failed in their duty to guard the flock against the wolves.

Update (Aug. 30, 2018): Some of you may question why I, a member of the Mormon church, would write a post to defend the Catholic church. The Catholic church has, whatever its faults or mistakes, been one of the greatest forces for good on this earth for over a thousand years and, for that reason, deserves defense against modernists. Mostly, though, my intent is to defend someone's faith in Christ against an author that I see as trying to undermine that faith. And if that faith in Christ is intertwined with the Catholic church, then so be it, I will defend the Catholic church. What I don't want see happen is someone become disgusted by the actions of evil men that happen to be in positions of authority in the Catholic church, and, by turning away from the Catholic church, thereby turn away from Christ.