In her eagerness for engagement with the world,
the Church has downplayed her eschatological mission
and thereby compromised her spiritual purposes.

Bishops forget souls

By Michael P. Orsi

n t a conference for priests, the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once spoke of St. Paul’s greatest failure as an evangelizer. It took place, he said, at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). Sheen said Paul failed to preach Christ crucified and made the mistake of trying to meet the Greek philosophers on their own terms. By speaking to them about an unknown God who had a niche in the Pantheon, Paul effectively lost them to human speculation. Pride in their learning and culture prohibited them from opening their minds to the fullness of Gospel Truth: repentance, judgment and resurrection in and through Jesus Christ and his cross. The scene in Acts closes with the majority of the crowd bursting into laughter and walking away, and Paul making only a few converts.

The reason I relate this story is that it mirrors the current attempts of the Catholic hierarchy in its ineffective battle with the culture of death now prevailing in America. The recent stem cell debate is a case in point. Though the bishops and their spokesman Richard Doerflinger have done an excellent job in presenting the scientific data that identifies embryos as human and have pointed out the ethical morass of President Bush’s decision to fund research on already existing cell lines, neither before nor after the flawed compromise did the bishops speak to it in light of the primary mission of the Church, the salvation of souls. Obviously, they didn’t learn much from Paul. It was only when he preached first on man’s telos or final eternal destiny made possible by Christ’s Paschal Mystery that his ministry efforts met with success.

The life issues which have preoccupied the Church’s battle against a secularized and materialistic society in recent years have met, for the most part, with failure. In the current debate, the Church has even lost some prominent formerly pro-life politicians, like Connie Mack of Florida, to the cause (Uhlman, M., 2001)1. While some contend that the hemorrhaging is due to the lack of preaching on the Church’s prohibitions to abortion, birth control and in vitro fertilization, pulpit silence is only one contributing factor, since, for the most part, Catholics and non-Catholics, know what the Church teaches on these issues. News reports during the period of debate were replete with statements from the Vatican and the American bishops on the evil of stem cell research. The problem, therefore, is not one of information but, I contend, one of focus. Polls indicate that Catholics have abortions and favor pro-choice legislation on a par with non-Catholics. The stem cell debate shows little difference between Catholic and non-Catholic views, with the majority of the Catholic population favoring the research (61 percent for and 24 percent against) (McGurn, W., 2001)2.

In Charles R. Morris’s American Catholic (1998)3, he identifies a tension that he believes exists between two documents of the Second Vatican Council: the vertically oriented Lumen Gentium, which explains the nature of the Church as continuing the mission of the Good Shepherd and motivated in this world by the glorious vision of the final kingdom of heaven; and the horizontally oriented Gaudium et Spes, which defines the Church’s social mission to the world and her role in the humanization of the human family through dialogue with the culture in which she exists. Although the documents in fact complement each other, it seems that recent emphasis has fallen on the latter. It seems that in her eagerness for engagement with the world, the Church has downplayed her eschatological mission and thereby compromised her spiritual purposes.

While bishops’ conferences are usually prescient on the moral decline eroding both Western and non-Western culture and have become astute and articulate in presenting philosophical and scientific arguments regarding respect for the dignity of the human person, their teaching more often than not reflects the language of science, sociology and human anthropology smattered with supporting scriptural references. Gospel truth in many instances is usually truncated, and sometimes what does appear is a cut-and-paste afterthought. The American Bishops Pastoral, “Living the Gospel of Life” (1998)4 follows just such an approach. Its secularized and humanistic tone presents a soft theology with only fleeting reference to the dangers “of the spiritual well-being of Catholic officials who depart from Catholic teaching.” However, it fails to describe these dangers. The fruitlessness of this approach speaks for itself.

Both scripture and tradition attest that the success of the Church’s mission rests solely on continuing the saving work of Christ by preaching the full Gospel. For no matter how cogent the Church’s pro-life arguments, whether based on reason and/or science, her very nature is to combat human hardness of heart and moral blindness caused by sin which is the root of the disrespect for life. The following questions, therefore, must now be asked: (1) How often is eternal life preached by our bishops or in our churches? (2) When is the last time we heard of the reality of mortal sin and eternal damnation? (3) When have Catholic politicians been reminded of their duty to the common good, which includes the spiritual well-being of the human race and the concomitant risk of the loss of immortal souls when they fail in this obligation? (4) When have pro-choice Catholic politicians been denied the sacraments when they assent to or promote immoral behaviors?

Unfortunately, to all these questions, the answer is seldom.

This current lack of focus as to man’s purpose and final goal has been given impetus by three prevalent heresies which have infiltrated the Church, blurred the vision of Catholic leaders and jeopardized souls: Multiculturalism, Presumption and Belief in the Non-Existence of Hell. I will attempt to delineate how these three errors have worked to undermine the Church’s efforts on behalf of life—earthly and heavenly.

Multiculturalism has undermined the Church’s mission. While it allegedly promotes respect for other faiths and Christian denominations, it in fact recognizes all truth claims to be equally valid, which is to say that none are objectively true. This has a devastating effect on the fundamental principles of morality. Religion is looked upon as a sociological construct void of any supernatural revelation and thus cut off from any spiritual source. It no longer thinks in terms of transcendence (Brown, H.O.J., 2001)5. The truth of Chesterton’s old adage about immorality being caused by the dismissal of immortality now comes into full play.

The failure to proclaim the uniqueness of Christ as the one way to salvation as well as the role of the Catholic Church as “The” Church founded by Christ, possessed with the fullness of truth, to aid us in our earthly pilgrimage to heaven, our final destiny (Dominus Iesus, 2000)6, will only continue to frustrate our attempts to shape the moral order. More than that, when we are unfaithful to our call to proclaim the fullness of the truth in season and out of season, we jeopardize our own souls and the souls of countless others. To talk about human life without talking about God’s law and man’s immortal soul merely plays into the hands of those who see man and society as preeminently limited to this world and thus malleable to human design where man becomes the source of all values. The natural order is merely instrumental to his aims, and God, if he exists, is irrelevant.

The second great heresy is the sin of presumption, where man either presumes his own capacity to save himself without God’s help or he presumes God’s mercy without merit (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] # 2092). I will focus on the latter, which has become so prevalent today that most people believe they are going to heaven. They believe that despite their unrepented sinfulness, God loves them so much that they will be saved. While God’s love is boundless, it is also true that God is just. Thus, once the truth is known and we freely choose to act contrary to his will, we have in fact rebelled against him. This separation, if mortally sinful, leads to eternal damnation. The truth is that God respects our human choices, and those actions that we formally engage in, or through our actions allow others to engage in, that are objectively sinful in fact determine the perpetrator’s own desire to be separated from God (John Paul II, 1993)7.

The loss of a sense of sin and its deadly consequences as well as of the idea that I am my brother’s keeper has jeopardized and perhaps already lost countless souls for the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the Church has, in her role as mother and teacher, the obligation to warn men and women of the dangers inherent in presumption. Alonfg with positive reminders of God’s love, the Church always used as medicinal—for those who were spiritually ill and jeopardizing their souls and the souls of others—the threats of excommunication and the denial of Christian burial, which is a privilege for leading a Christian life and not a right (Code of Canon Law [1983], cc. 1311,12 and 1184, 85)8. How often have these remedies been threatened or used? Where is the voice of the bishops who are responsible for the souls of pro-choice Catholic politicians, e.g., Joseph Biden of Delaware, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, John Kerrey of Massachusetts and, of course, Ted Kennedy, who voiced concern that President Bush’s permission for stem cell research on already-existing lines doesn’t go far enough? God’s warning to his shepherds bears repeating: “Shepherds ought to feed their flock. . . . [Y] ou failed to bring back the strays or look for the lost” (Ezek.34:3-4).

And finally, the logical conclusion flowing from presumption is that, since all will be saved, hell becomes illogical. If this be true, the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery become superfluous since Christ died to rescue us from eternal damnation. The full truth, however, is that to reject Christ by a life of thought and action contrary to the Gospel of life is a choice for hell, the existence of which is attested to in numerous scriptural quotations and from the mouth of Jesus himself. For example, “So shall it be at the end of the world; the angels shall come forth, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:49-50) (see CCC #1033-1037). It is unfortunate, but human beings do need fear at times to keep them on the straight and narrow. Almost everyone can identify with parental punishment for wrongdoing or the consequences of breaking society’s rules. The mature person recognizes these are meant for the individual and common good. How many thousands are in jail because they contravened the rules of society? How many have lost privileges because they have committed unethical acts in their professional lives? How many have suffered illness because of poor health habits and reckless lifestyles? Examples are endless. The fact is that our actions or lack thereof do have consequences. Hell just happens to be the ultimate end of immoral actions in life. Failure to preach or teach on this important truth is tantamount to being an accomplice to the crimes allowed by silence.

Despite Pope John Paul’s reminders that Christian communities cannot be reduced to social agencies and his challenge to “fearlessly proclaim the complete and authentic truth . . . without reductionism or ambiguities” (John Paul 11, Sept. 6, 2001)8, the Catholic hierarchy continues to issue sanitized statements worthy of any reasonable person of good will but unfortunately “void of a sense of ultimate realities,” i.e., The Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven and hell.

The statement made by Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, after President Bush’s address on his decision for limited stem cell research is prototypical of the evangelical void found among most official Catholic teachings on the issue. His theologically vapid statement following the presidential decision makes my point:

President Bush has reaffirmed his support for a ban on human cloning and other policies that deserve support in their own right. However, the trade-off he has announced is morally unacceptable: The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for possible benefit to others. However such a decision is hedged about with qualifications, it allows our nation’s research enterprise to cultivate a disrespect for human life.

Researchers who want to pursue destructive embryo research and their allies in Congress have already rejected such limits, saying that these limits will interfere with efforts to turn embryonic stem-cell research into possible medical treatments. The president’s policy may therefore prove to be as unworkable as it is morally wrong, ultimately serving only those whose goal is unlimited embryo research.

We hope and pray that President Bush will return to a principled stand against treating some human lives as nothing more that objects to be manipulated and destroyed for reearch purposes. As we face a new century of powerful and sometimes even frightening advances in biotechnology, we must help ensure that our technical advances will serve rather than demean our very humanity.

One has to wonder if the mention of the loss of heaven and the pains of hell would make a difference to those Catholics involved in legislation, laboratories and universities that promote embryonic cell line research. A prime example of the damage caused by the evangelical void is the case of Dr. Thomas B. Okarma, who is the chief executive of the Geron Corporation, which controls many of the rights to human embryonic stem cells. He describes himself as a former Catholic who views the role of religion as making society better. He believes that is what he is trying to do. It certainly seems that many contemporary Catholic statements also reflect this horizontal materialistic view, albeit with a differing point of view as to how a better world is to be achieved. He adds that the Church’s views might change when the benefits of cell therapy are realized (Pollack, A., 2001)9. At 55 years old, he certainly fits into the post-Vatican II cohort that suffered from the humanistic approach to religion that infiltrated our seminaries and, consequently, our pulpits and institutions of higher learning. One has to wonder if Dr. Okarma ever heard the teaching on the Catholic Church, the “One, True Church” through which Christ communicates truth and grace to all men (CCC #770). Or was he ever taught that there is an objective moral order that does not change according to utility? And finally, has he ever been told that acts contrary to the moral law place the immortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation?

If the battle for human life is to be won, it will only come about through the preaching of the full Gospel message. Pope John Paul is well aware of this. At the very beginning of his ministry as chief shepherd of the Church, he reflected on the Church’s mission as a fearless witness of faith by invoking the words of Jesus to Peter in Luke 5:11, “Do not be afraid” and, reflecting on the same Gospel passage in Novo Millennio Ineuente (2001)10, he repeated the Lord’s words, “Set out into the deep” in order to bring man into the kingdom of God. Here we see that it is the preaching of Jesus and vicariously by the Church of the Gospel that opens man’s eyes to reality and changes man’s hardness of heart. The pro-life battle is not going to be won on philosophical debate or scientific data. The reasonableness of the natural law and the deductions supported by molecular biology have to date convinced few of the wrong-headedness of the commodification of human life now prevalent in our society.

Rationalization about the availability and good use of spare embryos, redefinition of when human life begins, e.g., at the moment of implantation, and/or euphemisms like “pre-embryo” are only further diversionary tactics used to cloud human vision by the Prince of Darkness to gain possession of the human soul made in God’s image. The pro-life battle we are engaged in is ultimately spiritual in nature. Only clear teaching on man’s purpose and destiny will overcome the culture of death. To concede the Truth to human truths is to deny the efficacy of the Word of God and to proscribe the purpose of Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery to the confines of ecclesial discourse.

Before Vatican II, “Salus animarum suprema lex,” (“the salvation of souls is the highest law”) was a popular episcopal motto. If this would become the hierarchy’s focus once again, no doubt, everything else would fall into place. However, if Church leaders continue to meet the world on its terms, we will continue, as the saying goes, to “spin our wheels” and lose countless more souls to the Evil One.

1 Uhlman, M. (September 2001). “Where Have All The Catholics Gone?” Crisis, p. 8.
2 McGurn, W. (2001, Aug. 24). “Preach to the Choir.” Wall Street Journal, p 8.
3 Morris, C. (1998). American Catholic: The Saints and Sinners Who Build America’s Most Powerful Church. NY: Random House, Times Books.
4 United States Catholic Conference (1998). “Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics.”
5 Brown, H.O.J. (September 2001). “Sic et Non? Agreeing Not to Disagree,” Chronicles, pp. 20-21.
6 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (2000). Dominus Iesus.
7 John Paul 11 (1993). Veritatis Splendor.
8 Code of Canon Law (1983). DC: Canon Law Society of America.
9 John Paul II (2001). “Address to Uruguayan Bishops.” Zenit.org, Sept. 6, 2001, pp. 2-3.
10 Pollack, A. (2001, Aug. 26). “Can Geron Fulfill Stem Cell Promise?” New York Times, pp. 1, 11.
11 John Paul II (2001). Novo Millennio Ineuente.

Reverend Michael P. Orsi, a priest of the Diocese of Camden, N.J., is the author of four books and many articles. He has served as Assistant Chancellor and Director of the Family Life Bureau. Fr. Orsi has a Ph.D. in education from Fordham University. He is presently serving as Chaplain and Research Fellow in Law and Religion at Ave Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Mich. His last article in HPR appeared in July 2001.