Disregarding The Body – Podcast
The Crisis of our Time
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
Companion Posts
+++
Starting Again
I was born in the sixties. But I am not a child of the 60’s. My family was lower-middle class, and by the standards of the time, traditional in most every way. Dad was a minister. If he or mom had lived into their 90’s they would not have imagined the social changes we have witnessed in the last 20 years. It would be too easy to say the sexual revolution of the 60’s caused all this change, as some conservatives maintain. But the roots of this change go back much further than the swinging 60’s.
So I’m embarking with some misgivings on a survey of cultural history. There are deep intellectual and cultural traditions that have shaped our everyday lives. We’ve come to a point in the Western world where the statement “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” is comprehensible to many public leaders, at least in public. That phrase would be completely incomprehensible to my parent’s generation, in public or private, not to mention every preceding generation. It is still incomprehensible to many, if not most people today. But if you express your bewilderment in public, say at many workplaces in the Western world, increasingly the odds are you will be regarded as stupid, immoral or worse. You may be reprimanded for your irrational “phobia.” You might even have your career derailed. If you broadcast your view on a public forum, say Twitter, expect the Twitterati to pounce with the ferocity of a caged unfed Tiger. In certain parts of the world you may even be charged with a hate-crime for your expressed incredulity at the latest massive cultural shift. (See the following posts, here & here.)
As a 60’s poet might say, “The times they are a changin.”
The tectonic cultural shift in the last 20 years is quite breathtaking. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, we have gone from year 2000 where the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage to today where normalization of Transgenderism is fast approaching.
A long and winding road brought us to this point. I want to offer a thoughtful and hopefully generous exposition, from a Classic Christian point of view, of how we got here. As I go, I’ll be documenting some disturbing current events. (Read my next post). I hope that even those who disagree with Classic Christianity will find here a fair and readable assessment of our state of affairs. (post continues page 2)
Borders and Brotherhood: A Catholic Look at Immigration and the Ordo Amoris
In our polarized moment, immigration policy is one of those topics that easily divides sincere believers. Some Christians—often from a more progressive persuasion—emphasize our Gospel duty to welcome the stranger. Others, more traditionally minded, stress the importance of preserving cultural integrity, the rule of law, and the common good of the political community. Both instincts, in truth, have a place within the Christian moral tradition.
But how do we hold them together?
Few writers today handle this balance better than Edward Feser, a philosophy professor and traditional Catholic thinker whose work I’ve followed and appreciated for years. In two recent articles —“A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” and his follow-up, “Catholicism and Immigration: A Rejoinder to Cory and Sweeney”— Feser offers a deeply rooted, humane, and intellectually serious summary of the Catholic Church’s teaching on immigration. It’s a perspective worth hearing, especially for those who may assume that any restriction on immigration is incompatible with Christian love.
Order in Love: Why Family and Nation Matter
Feser’s starting point is an ancient and biblical idea: the ordo amoris, or the “order of love.” This principle, affirmed by St. Augustine and systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that while we are called to love all people, we are especially obligated to care first for those closest to us—our family, our neighbors, our nation.
As Aquinas puts it, “other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us.” (Summa II-II.31.3)
This isn’t nationalism run amok—it’s common sense grounded in the reality of our created nature. We are not abstract global citizens first and foremost. We are embodied creatures born into specific families, places, and cultures. As Pope John Paul II argued, both family and nation are “natural societies” that shape and nurture us in essential ways. Patriotism—rightly ordered—isn’t idolatry. It’s a virtue connected to the Fourth Commandment: honoring your father and mother.
Welcoming the Stranger: A Real but Qualified Duty
Now, the Church is equally clear that we do have duties to the foreigner in need. The Catechism (2241) affirms that “the more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood.”
But—and this is the part often overlooked—that obligation is not absolute. The same paragraph goes on to say that political authorities may “make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions,” especially with respect to the immigrant’s duty to obey the laws and respect the heritage of the host country.
Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II both affirmed this prudential balance. The Church does not endorse “open borders.” Rather, it entrusts governments with the responsibility of weighing many legitimate concerns: economic stability, public safety, cultural cohesion, and social peace.
To quote Pope John Paul II: “Even highly developed countries are not always able to assimilate all those who emigrate….certainly, the exercise of such a right (to emigrate) is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant.”
Prudence Is Not Relativism
Feser is careful to point out that recognizing a range of morally licit policy options is not relativism. Rather, it’s an application of the virtue of prudence—something Aquinas sees as essential to moral reasoning in complex situations. Christians of good will can, and often do, come to different conclusions about immigration policy while still honoring the same moral principles.
But what we can’t do is selectively quote the Church to support one side of the argument while ignoring the rest. Feser’s articles are a call to integrity—a plea to read the Church’s teaching in full, not just the parts that support our preferred politics.
The Forgotten Vice: Oikophobia
Feser also makes an important cultural observation. While Scripture rightly emphasizes love for the stranger—precisely because the default human temptation is tribal exclusion—our modern Western problem often cuts the other way. Many today (especially in elite circles) seem embarrassed by patriotism and suspicious of national loyalty. Philosopher Roger Scruton called this “oikophobia”—a fear or hatred of home. In our desire to care for others, we risk forgetting that we also have duties to our own.
This is not just a political point. It’s a theological one. Love must be ordered. We are to care for the poor and the outsider—but not in ways that undermine the health of the family, or the peace and stability of the nation. The ordo amoris demands both compassion and clarity.
A Word to My Progressive Friends
If you lean progressive and are reading this, I want to thank you for caring about the dignity of immigrants. That concern is a beautiful reflection of God’s heart. But I also want to invite you to consider Feser’s argument—not as a reactionary screed, but as a thoughtful, deeply Catholic appeal to moral coherence.
You may not agree with every policy endorsed by conservatives. I don’t either. But don’t let personality or partisanship keep you from considering the moral seriousness behind traditional immigration arguments.
I’m including links to both of Feser’s articles. I hope you’ll read them—not necessarily to be convinced, but at least to be more fully informed.
“The entirety of Church teaching—not only what it says about welcoming the stranger, but also what it says about the limitations on that obligation—must inform our judgments.”
— Edward Feser
LINKS TO READ:
+++
Why “Separation of Church and State” Was Never the American Way
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that most Christians have never heard of—Everson v. Board of Education. Yet that ruling, more than any other, reshaped the place of Christianity in American public life. In fact, the very idea that our Constitution demands a strict “separation of church and state” was essentially invented by that decision. But what if this idea wasn’t true to America’s founding? And what if it ran counter to the biblical role of government itself?
A recent Harvard Law Journal article by Timon Cline, Josh Hammer, and Yoram Hazony—three voices from both Christian and Jewish traditions—argues that the time has come to overturn Everson and restore the original vision of the First Amendment. Christians seeking to understand the world through a biblical lens, should pay close attention.
Government’s Biblical Responsibility: Promoting the Public Good
Romans 13 tells us that civil authorities are ordained by God to uphold justice and punish evil. First Peter 2 commands rulers to “praise those who do good.” This biblical principle was historically recognized by Christian thinkers and undergirded America’s early political structure. The Founders never imagined a government stripped of moral and religious foundations. Instead, they understood—as Proverbs 14:34 puts it—that “righteousness exalts a nation.”
The Harvard Law Journal scholars point out that America’s original constitutional design reflected this reality: under the First Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a national church or interfering with religious establishments at the state level. In other words, individual states were expected to shape public morality—including support for Christianity—as they saw fit.
The Great Distortion: How Everson Rewrote the First Amendment
How, then, did “separation of church and state” become national dogma?
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black reinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment using Thomas Jefferson’s offhand metaphor of a “wall of separation.” But Jefferson’s phrase came from a personal letter written 14 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified—and Jefferson wasn’t even in the country when the First Amendment was drafted.
This metaphor, the authors argue, was never meant to create a religiously neutral state. Yet Justice Black’s ruling applied this separationist vision to the states, effectively barring them from supporting religion in any public form. Ironically, the First Amendment’s clear limitation on federal power was transformed into a federal prohibition against state-level religious expression.
From a biblical worldview, this distortion matters deeply. Scripture never envisions the civil order as “neutral” toward the things of God. Rather, rulers are called to “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2:12)—to govern with justice that acknowledges God’s authority.
The Fruits of Everson: A Secular Public Square
What followed Everson is all too familiar. Prayer and Bible reading were banned from schools. Christian moral teachings were sidelined. Secularism—the active removal of religion from public life—became the assumed posture of government. As the legal scholars argue, this didn’t create neutrality; it created a functional state-sponsored religion of secularism.
Romans 1 describes what happens when a society “suppresses the truth” about God: moral confusion and cultural decay. We’ve witnessed this firsthand as public life—once broadly shaped by biblical norms—has become a vacuum filled by alternative ideologies.
A Forgotten American Principle: Local Freedom to Support Religion
One of the most insightful arguments from Cline, Hammer, and Hazony is that American federalism originally allowed each state to shape its religious character. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire maintained various forms of Christian establishment well into the 19th century. This wasn’t forced religion. Alongside these establishments, states protected freedom of conscience.
The genius of this system was local accountability. Each state, as a community, had the freedom to uphold religious practices appropriate to its people. This echoes the biblical principle of local leadership seen in Exodus 18, where Moses is told to appoint “capable men from all the people…to serve as officials” over groups at different levels.
What Christians Should Hope For
The Harvard Law Journal article calls for overturning Everson and returning decisions about public religion to the states. From a Christian worldview, this proposal aligns with key scriptural principles:
- Civil rulers should promote the public good, including moral and religious formation.
- Religious instruction should not be coerced but encouraged.
- Parents and local communities should shape children’s moral education (Deuteronomy 6:6–7).
Imagine a future where states once again have the freedom to support prayer in schools, Bible instruction, and moral formation—not by force, but by communal choice. Such a restoration would acknowledge the biblical truth that faith in God strengthens public virtue.
Caution: Supporting Truth Without Coercion
While we should hope for a return to public religion, Christians must remember that authentic faith cannot be imposed (2 Corinthians 4:2). Government should create conditions favorable to righteousness, but not attempt to compel belief. This balance—supporting religion while protecting conscience—was wisely preserved in many early American states. It’s a biblical balance worth recovering.
Conclusion: A Time for Restoration
In their closing words, Cline, Hammer, and Hazony argue that Everson has become “the principal obstacle to the restoration of a genuinely conservative public life.” From a biblical worldview, they’re right. Removing Everson would not guarantee national renewal, but it would remove a legal barrier that suppresses the public expression of biblical faith.
In the end, Scripture calls both individuals and nations to acknowledge the Lord. As Psalm 33:12 declares, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”
We now live in a society where public policy denies basic realities:
- That God created humans male and female (Genesis 1:27).
- That marriage is designed to unite one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24).
- That children are a gift to be welcomed, not commodities to be engineered (Psalm 127:3).
- That human life, from conception to natural death, bears the image of God (Genesis 1:26).
When a society suppresses these truths, it suppresses the very foundation of human dignity and moral order. Christians should not respond with apathy or with abstract appeals to “religious freedom” alone. We should desire what these scholars recommend: a restoration of public religion—not to coerce belief, but to witness to truth.
It is time for our laws, schools, and public institutions to once again affirm what creation itself teaches. This does not mean a return to coercive state churches. It means restoring the freedom of communities to encourage what is true, good, and life-giving—and removing federal barriers that prevent states from doing so.
+++
St. John Paul II’s “Letter to Women”
June 29 was the 30th anniversary of St. John Paul II’s “Letter to Women.” ( A MUST READ)
Some reflections on the uplifting importance of that letter….
Reflection 1
John Paul II’s first, and arguably, most profound point, is his expression of gratitude. Whether you’re a mother, wife, daughter, sister, employed in the workforce, consecrated virgin, or an educator (in whatever capacity), he thanks YOU. He doesn’t only thank you for the work you do, but for your very existence as a woman.
Reflection 2
As St. John Paul II continues in his reflection, he rightly brings awareness to the marginalization and lack of progress women have experienced. While it’s easy to see drastic progress in something like Title IX, we are simultaneously experiencing a “relapse” of this progress, spearheaded by lawmakers, organizations, and activists rushing to dismantle a law that has protected so many women. This is not the only deterioration we are seeing.
We live in a culture that no longer understands what it means to be a woman. We live in a culture that changes words like “breastfeeding” to “chestfeeding” or “women” to “wimmin” in the name of affirmation and inclusivity. We live in a culture where biological men compete in women’s sports. And we live in a culture that tells little girls they are boys because they enjoy wearing cargo shorts over dresses and prefer trucks over dolls. The list continues. So, what happened?
We not only forgot to thank women, but we also forgot to address that women are inherently different and unique, made in the Image and Likeness of God, with a specific vocation that only women can fulfill, to help. I’m not claiming the world became corrupt for this reason alone, but how are we expected to flourish in a culture that doesn’t respect or appreciate God’s given design for our bodies, let alone His plan for our lives?
Further reflections found here. But I’ll finish with this one.
“Let us remind our daughters, “tomboys” or not, that they are loved as a child of the Lord and are no less of a woman because they choose dirt over dolls, or dolls over dirt. Let us remind our friends that they can still be “mothers” by guiding their students, peers, or nieces/nephews toward the truth, single or not.”
Saint John PAul II’s “Letter to Women”
+++