Webster’s Dictionary defines modernism as “any of several movements variously attempting to redefine Biblical and Christian dogma and traditional teachings in the light of modern science, historical research, etc. Modernism was condemned by Pope Pius X in 1907as a heresy.”
This definition helps us to understand that modernism is not something new. It has been looming in the background and gnawing away at the faith and teaching of the Church for many, many years.
This heresy should not be confused with modernism in general. The Church certainly is not against scientific development and the advance of technology. The concern here is the exaltation of human law over the divine, with science and a misguided humanism taking the place of God. As created beings we are subject to the laws of God the Creator. This is called the natural law, which is participation in God’s law through right reason. The moral law is based on the natural law. All laws to be true laws, must be in accord with the moral law.
Those of us who grew up in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s can hardly believe the changes that have taken place in our culture. At the time it did not seem possible, for example, that in a few years Sunday would be treated pretty much like any other day of the week. It did not even enter our minds that the killing of the unborn in the womb would not only be protected by law, but actually advocated as a solution to many problems. What was once considered instinctively evil is now considered by many as a necessary license for the good of mankind.
All the Popes, beginning with Pope Pius XII, have stated that the greatest evil of our times is the loss of the sense of sin. Like a ship without a rudder, the world has lost its moral bearings because it no longer is guided by Christian tradition which was the foundation for European and American culture.
How to explain all this? By chance I ran across an interesting book published in 1970 (three years before the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court) edited by John Noonan and entitled, The Morality of Abortion. The book predicted what was about to happen and gave the reasons why. Some quotes from the book and comments follow:
“Abortion, once regarded as a secret and loathsome crime, a medical disaster or a tragic manifestation of human weakness, has been justified by the draftsmen of the American Law Institute, defended by the American Medical Association, applauded by the American Public Health Association, championed by Planned Parenthood, and publicized by The New York Times.
“In America, as has been more than once observed, moral issues become legal issues, and legal issues become constitutional issues. What is right must be legal, and what is wrong must be unconstitutional” (The Morality of Abortion, edited by John Newman, 1970, p. ix).
What seems perfectly obvious with the reasoning just quoted is that the whole concept of morality has been changed by controlling factions in society. The ultimate criterion of what is right and wrong is no longer decided by either the natural law (according to Webster’s Dictionary — man’s innate moral sense) or the higher law of God as known through the Judeo-Christian tradition (like the Ten Commandments), but by man-made laws and attitudes.
Secondly, the Constitution is now considered as totally independent from a higher law. It is therefore quite easy to understand why interpreting the Constitution, or misinterpreting and reading into it, has become the obsession of our Supreme Court justices, our judges, and some legislative bodies. It is precisely the results of modernism, which was condemned by Pius X.
When our country was founded, there was respect for and obedience to the natural law and the supreme law of the Creator. In fact, the Declaration of Independence based its revolutionary ideas on the notion that if the basic rights of a subjugated colony are being severely transgressed, that colony has the right from the natural law to secede and set up its own new government. And this is precisely what the colonies did. The notion of God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence, which preceded and set the tone of our Constitution. Let us quote from the pertinent phrases from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence speaks as follows:
“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them. . . .
“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain Unalienable Rights….We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions…on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
It is obvious from the quotes above that the Second Continental Congress, when it met and wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, recognized the new nation to be under and not superior to, a higher law, and a higher power from which all rights and liberties spring. The very act of declaring independence from another nation derives its legitimacy from a universal natural law which protects and mandates the rights of all. Man is not a law unto himself, but must recognize that as a created and temporary being, there must be a higher law to which all rational creatures owe obedience. When these rights are infringed upon, it is the duty and right of the oppressed people to declare their independence from such oppression. Thus, might is not necessarily right, but right is might.
The Founding Fathers of our country took for granted the supremacy of divine law. Alexander Hamilton, a signer of the Constitution, wrote:
“The law, dictated by God, Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this” (The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 1, p. 87).
James Wilson, another signer of the Constitution and a U.S. Supreme Court justice, wrote: “All laws may be arranged in two different classes, 1) Divine. 2) Human. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine” (The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, vol. 1, pp. 103-105).
If one studies the Revolutionary War, it is clearly shown that both the newly established Congress, and the leaders of the movement, not only believed in God, but also prayed to Him for deliverance. Even the victorious army thanked God for the victory:
“ ‘In recognition of so many reiterated and astonishing interpositions of Providence,’ morning service was performed in all the different divisions and brigades of the allied army, and at two o’clock the captive soldiers filed out of Yorktown. Sullen and dejected, they proceeded in a somewhat ‘careless and irregular’ manner between the two victorious lines — the Americans on the right, the French on the left — formed for their reception, drums beating a British march” (Angel in the Whirlwind by Benson Bobrick: Simon and Schuster, 1997, p. 463).
“When the victory appeared decisive, Congress met in the morning and upon hearing the news proceeded in a body to church for a special service of thanksgiving” (ibid., p. 466).
What has happened in our times, however, is that the connection between the law and morality as derived from a higher law has been totally severed. Thus the Constitution reigns supreme and the law, as long as it can be interpreted as protected by the Constitution, makes it right and correct. Thus in the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution had to be shown as supportive. The right of privacy protected by the 14th Amendment was said to be the supporting link, even though a careful reading of this amendment shows no connection whatsoever.
When the Supreme Court justices abrogated the laws prohibiting abortion in our country, using the 14th Amendment as a support for this action, they did not expect the American people to read the 14th Amendment, but to leave it up to the “experts” to interpret its meaning. For the sake of the record we quote it here.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.”
The above quote is section 1 of the amendment. There are four other sections which are concerned with the number of representatives in a state; those who can hold public office; the public debt; and the power to enforce the legislation of the amendment. The amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, about three years after the 13th Amendment, which forbade slavery. In the minds of those who approved the amendment, it is obvious that there was no consciousness whatsoever that this amendment would ever have anything to do with permitting abortion.
Thus we see that the demand for free access to abortion in the United States in the turbulent 1960s had become almost universal, especially by those in the power establishment. We have a tendency to place the blame for the legalization of abortion squarely on the shoulders of the Supreme Court justices, but I believe it is much more accurate to say that so many Americans wanted the “right” to have an abortion, that the Supreme Court, by manipulating the 14th Amendment, was merely carrying out the demands of the powers that be.
The beginning of this movement to a new-found sexual freedom was given great impetus by the medical advance controlling conception through the pill. The pill introduced a new sexual freedom, which completely separated the pleasures of intercourse and the possibility of conception. Science greatly contributed to the new thinking that sexual restraint was no longer necessary. Sex was something to be enjoyed in itself and not connected with the old ideas of pregnancy.
The pill, however, was a mere introduction to sexual freedom. Once the pleasures of sexual intercourse were taken for granted as part of modern-day culture, abortion was seen as necessary to maintain this freedom. The number of high school and college girls who become pregnant as a result of this practice is not known, but it is certain that very few who become pregnant consider it their responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term. Pregnancy is considered an accident which would interfere with their plans, future, and lifestyle. Many young couples live together without marriage. Many do not want children because they are seen as an obstacle to their personal goals at this stage of their lives.
This new understanding of freedom leads to many inconsistencies and contradictions. The bottom line of course is that one person’s freedom to obtain an abortion is the denial of another person’s right to live. It is quite astounding how so many “intelligent” people can be in denial of something so obvious. A pregnant woman in a car accident who loses her child through a miscarriage can sue for the loss of her baby. Yet, the aborted fetus of the same age is disposed of in the ashcan.
We live in an age in which freedom has gone berserk. It is something personal and subjective and often has nothing to do with reality. What is true for me is not necessarily true for you and vice-versa. Everything is relative. The law of contradiction taught by Aristotle centuries ago, which is the foundation of all logic and reasoning, has become part of antiquated tradition. (A thing cannot be said to be and not be at the same time in the same respect.) Euphemisms cover up the truth. Reproductive health spells death to the unwanted pregnancy. Even the word “pro-choice” hides the real meaning of pro-death.
The U.S. Supreme Court with all its learned and sophisticated justices does not recognize the objectivity of truth especially when it comes to protecting against abortion. In its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it stated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of life.” A ninth-grade biology student wouldn’t get a very good grade if he followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in defining his own idea of the mystery of life.
Sex was created by God as a great good and meant to be creative and something wonderful and beautiful in the overall plan of creation. It was never meant to be the goal of life or to be so ubiquitous in life and culture. One must always seek the higher good, which entails restraining all inordinate appetites, desires and passions.
St. Ignatius thought that man’s greatest problems were caused by his refusal to control his unruly passions. Perhaps we should have a deep sympathy for the mothers, equal to the unwanted aborted children. The child has done nothing wrong, but the mother in the name of freedom chooses a terribly immoral act, which is contrary to nature and motherly instinct. We think of the evil of the holocaust in Germany with the killing of over six million Jews and close to three million Poles and Christians, of 9/11 in 2001, when almost 3,000 died, a date never to be forgotten for its atrocity.
Yet every day in our country 3,600 persons never make it to the outside world because of abortion. And this is condoned by the Supreme Court and by much of society.
Is there any greater evil in the history of mankind? How long can society hide its head in the sand and pretend that this evil doesn’t exist?
In closing, a word should be said about another inconsistency resulting from the vacuum caused by getting rid of the natural and moral law. And that is same-sex marriage. As of this writing, 19 states have legal same-sex marriage. Activist judges ignore the natural law and declare that refusing same-sex couples marriage is contrary to the Constitution (referring to the equality clause in the 14th Amendment).
The demand for equality without regard to morality is like saying the health of the body is not dependent upon eating the right food, but upon the right one has to drink and eat things that are harmful to the body. The cause and effect relationship of natural reality has been thrown out. Yes, one is free to do and live as one chooses, but the results of eating the wrong food and drinking the wrong drink is catastrophic because it is against what is naturally good for the body.
We cannot go against nature and be happy and healthy. The same is true of abortion and same-sex marriage. Both are contrary to the natural law and therefore immoral. They can only bring about catastrophe for our country and our world.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress