A Virus is an Act of Nature, Not an Act of Man

As obvious as it may sound, a virus is not a man. Therefore, the actions of a virus are not the actions of a man. And what can be said of a virus can be said about bacteria. Their actions are autonomous and distinct from human agency. The actions of viruses and bacteria are acts of nature (sometimes called acts of God).

In terms of liability, which means to be responsible for causation and/or effect, man is not liable for acts of nature. Only in cases of gross negligence or deliberate maleficence, i.e. an absence of reasonable care, in the instrumental use of nature can someone perhaps be considered liable for an act of nature. 

For example, if a person has a healthy tree that is struck by lightning, and the tree falls on and damages a neighbor’s property, the owner of the tree is not liable for the lightning strike or the damage caused by it. 

Now, a common objection is inserted here, which is not an objection as much as it is a diversion, that in love a neighbor may or even ought to willingly forego all questions of liability and simply choose to help. This is the important question of compassion. In this case, however, the question of liability is sidestepped, not addressed. 

To better understand, the real principle at work in the foregoing example is more clearly revealed when that same tree, say, injures ten people who were in a tent on the neighbor’s property and who are consequently sent to the ICU for three months and so produce, again say, a twenty million dollar expense. 

This example more clearly reveals the principle at work because at that point the question of love is present, but barring enormous wealth one is simply unable to afford to simply redress the problem through an act of love. Thus the question of liability comes clearer into focus, because although one may want to help that neighbor, most people are not in a position to pay out twenty million dollars. If the injured party tried to sue or otherwise compel compensation, most would agree that a private citizen ought not be held liable for such acts of nature, despite their tragic nature. If they ended up dying because of the lightning struck tree falling on the tent, should the owner of the tree then be considered guilty of manslaughter, if not murder? Would love demand that the owner of the tree willingly go to jail?

The foregoing example, it should also be pointed out, turns on a principle of ex post facto, i.e. already caused, damage. It does not turn on a preventative question as does the vaccine question. In other words, the person is not being held liable for not having priorly cut down a healthy tree. For it is perfectly legal to own a healthy tree.

Again, this is a question of actual liability. It is not a question of what we may want to do or even can do. It is purely a question of what it means to be liable for acts of nature. We may want to help or we may not want to help, we may be in a position to help or we may not be in a position to help, but what is the actual liability? 

Not forgetting the question of compassion raised above, however, and liability being especially a question of justice, I would also contend that this question of justice is also a question of compassion. Because if lightning strikes a tree and tragically harms one’s neighbors, and that neighbor attempts to sue for twenty million dollars in damages and so bankrupts the family and causes them to become homeless, then that now homeless family will wonder why they were made responsible, which is to say liable, for an act of nature, and further why no one has mercy on them. Justice, in other words, is not in principle opposed to mercy, but actually is rooted in mercy and protection against unjust retaliation, false accusations, and overreach regarding claims of liability.

Now, it seems fairly intuitive that a person cannot be made liable for an act of nature, and although the example given above is that of lightning striking a tree, the same principle applies to the acts of a virus or bacteria. For example, if someone cooks a bad batch of food and those who eat the food get sick, the cook is not then liable, if it can be shown that there was no negligence on his part and that reasonable care was maintained in its preparation and delivery. Just like the striking of lightning, acts of nature happen, and although tragic, liability is not then simply transferred to the nearest person.

In this light, a healthy person acting normally, and with reasonable care, cannot be held liable for the acts of a virus. He is right to refuse any responsibility for the acts of non-human agents. Therefore, it would be unjust for mandatory or compulsory vaccinations even in the case of contagious diseases. Those who are infected and contagious demonstrate reasonable care by quarantining themselves, but those who are healthy are not liable for acts of nature, and so cannot be subject to involuntary medical intervention, or penalized for refusal, on the basis of acts of nature that are always in principle outside the control of human agency.

In cases where one would suggest the enforcing of maximal preventative measures, the principle would thus demand that all trees be cut down, all hospitals be shut down (since they are a major location of disease transmission, and liability still applies), all restaurants and stores be closed, all windows be made of bulletproof glass, all cars dismantled, all clothing expanded to bulletproof armor, all bicycles be exchanged for tricycles, all airplanes grounded, all fast food chains shut down, all guns removed, all free speech banned, all churches closed, mandatory wearing of steel toed boots and helmets at all times, etc., with the whole world being re-envisioned in terms of these safety and liability considerations… Why? Because the expanded application of liability to all these things would be such that everyone is made responsible for every possible harmful action such that all precautions must be forcibly imposed at all times and in all locations. The absurdity of this is self-evident, as we cannot vaccinate or protect against nature itself, and there is a natural limit to which the human metabolism can even process such things, not to mention human psyches and societies.

A similar situation would be in the case of, say, a guest opening a door, entering a home, and closing the door in a normal, responsible fashion and ignorantly letting in a mosquito that had malaria. The person opening the door is not liable for the actions of the mosquito, and so cannot be held liable in the case where someone in the house contracts malaria. Nor can the owner of the house be held liable for the actions of that mosquito, even though one could maybe argue they could have any number of nets, sprays, and obstacles at the entrance of the home. A person simply cannot be held liable for the act of a mosquito, for it is an act of nature.

In conclusion, just as man does not make the wind blow violently or the lightning strike, neither does he make a disease contagious. This is simply part of the inbuilt danger of the natural, given world. If someone becomes infected, the ancient and established biblical principle of quarantining applies, but, in the case of ostensible good health, no one can be made responsible for the acts of a virus such that they should be made to submit to medical force against their person. A person is liable for their own actions and those which are in their sphere of control, not the acts of nature. An ostensibly healthy person taking reasonable care to maintain normal safety is all that is right to ask of our fellow citizens in any normal environment, but since liability cannot be extended to responsibility for the acts of autonomous entities that act independently of human volition, no one has the right to force vaccinations under any principle that presupposes such a liability.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Short Defense of St. Peter Mogila's Catechism

In the 20th and 21st centuries, as the Orthodox Church in the Anglophone world was deeply engaging with the Church Fathers, translating Patristic and Liturgical texts, it became popular among some to criticize St. Peter Mogila's 17th Century Catechism. There were moments when some Orthodox theologians could be heard declaring that Orthodox Christianity doesn't even "do" systematic theology. In this light, St. Peter's Catechism was seen as too Western, too capitulated to Romanism, and therefore it can be safely ignored and set aside as, at best, a curiosity that bears no meaningful authority.

The problem with this attitude towards the Catechism is that it is truly self-defeating. In order to criticize St. Peter Mogila's Catechism, one ends up criticizing its conciliar nature, and so conciliarity itself. For the document was amended and formally received by the four highest Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Furthermore, it was officially received at the Particular Council of Jerusalem in 1672 held under Patriarch Dositheus. To criticize St. Peter's Catechism is then to criticize these Fathers, to criticize the conciliar nature of its unanimous acceptation, and so to say that the whole Church was capitulated to Romanism. For it is not merely St. Peter Mogila's Catechism; it is claimed as the Catechism of the Orthodox Church itself. What is worse, this criticism ends up treading upon the promise of Christ to the Church, that She cannot fail, and so moves in the direction of unraveling the very fabric of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The Church has never been captive to the Latins. Therefore, for Orthodox Christians to be skeptical towards St. Peter Mogila is for them to be skeptical of the Orthodox Church, and this ends up becoming truly self-defeating. If, in light of its conciliar and formal acceptance, we cannot wholeheartedly embrace and trust the Catechism, then we cannot embrace and trust the Church which produced it and unanimously declared its canonicity, and then, finally, we cannot even trust the contemporary theologians who sought to criticize it. If we cannot trust St. Peter Mogila, and the Patriarchs and Councils which formally approved his Catechism, then we certainly should not trust some 20th or 21st Century theologian who seeks to minimize and diminish its importance. Rather, it looks like those who seek to criticize it have placed themselves in a position contrary to the phronema of the Orthodox Church.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Man, Nothingness, and Being: A Short Reflection on How the Gospel Might Speak to Atheism

Man is created in the image of God ex nihilo, out of nothing, and so in a sense when he looks honestly into his soul man sees a double reality: on the one hand the fact of an infinite gaping nothingness, and on the other hand the infinite embracing reality of Being. This internal tension demands and takes an enormous toll on his psyche, and in his fallen state man is ever striving towards being, as if standing precariously on and gripping an impossible incline, ever fearing lest he slip into the bottomless nothingness which he senses, if not recognizes, within himself deep below.

At times the nothingness can appear almost sweet, like an infinite ease, while at other times terrifying in its overwhelming power to destroy, through a kind of inexorable negating power of absence, all meaning, connection, and value. Similarly, at times Being can be reassuring, affirming, and uplifting (as out of the nothing), while at other times seem impossible in its rigid demands, its edges and consequences, terrifying in its overwhelming, overshining presence, like a terrible judge ever threatening to pronounce guilt at one’s inability to live up to reality’s infinite realism. In certain moments these two can seem almost to coalesce, to become as if one, where total absence is an infinite presence, and infinite presence a space beyond the cacophony of things, i.e. of matter and form. 

The urge to atheism that some feel is just this thirsting for truth, real truth, as a radical denial of all pious opinions and romantic ephemera, the urge to acknowledge as meaningful the absolute nothingness which appears as such an inextricable part of one’s experience of being (however paradoxical that may sound). Atheism, in this nearly religious sense, is the denial of infinite Being in favor of infinite nothingness. It is finally a kind of mystical nothingness which moves, even bizarrely and as if against the will of the atheist, towards the recognition of a transcendental fecundity at the heart of all such nihilism. This is the path out of atheism by taking the path through atheism, to recognize that beyond all mythologies and speculations there is a bedrock of reality that, often frustratingly, demands recognition. The reality of nothingness finally becomes reality, becomes presence.

From this vantage, and for some perhaps only from this vantage, one is at last able to see that what was once a pervasive absence is now a pervasive presence, and it becomes undeniable that there is a positive reality which pervades all things, and that this has always been so. In this one is even able to see that at the heart of religious faith there is a kernel of truth, one inadequately married to name and form, to be sure, but one to which name and form can become translucent, transcendental reality accommodating itself to the imperfect minds of men. 

This transcendental reality, moreover, has produced time and space, and so pervades all things while not being touched by them. This transcendental reality even has all power. It stands beyond all name and form, all time and space, all laws and all entropy, and in this the true meaning of God starts to dawn on the mind: That which is beyond, but also within, for in this Truth we live and move and have our being. And even here insight is not exhausted, because, beyond the vagaries of personality, the personhood that stands at the heart of our experience is no longer perceived as merely accidental, but reflective, like a deep echo, of what is true at even the most fundamental level of reality. And so transcendental reality is known not merely as an It, but as Person, and here one stands at the threshold of the transcendental Trinity of Persons: the Origin, the Logos, and the Spirit.

Having created all reality, its very Master, the Logos is able to enter into time and space. Almost as if the Dreamer had entered into his own dream, He entered into the stream of history, time and space offering no resistance to Him. For how could they? And so, having lived perfectly according to the laws of nature, and sensitive to their origin beyond time and space, after dying miserably on a cross it were as nothing for Him to transcend them, as if mocking the law of death that governs all things in this world, by rising from the dead, manifesting the mastery of Being over nothingness. This message echoes throughout the world, that conquering death through dying, passing through nothingness Being is victorious, both in time and in eternity, on earth as it is in heaven: This being the recapitulation of the insight that Being is the fundamental Truth, and that even nothingness gives way to He Who Is.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Blessed Theophylact on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Galatians 3:13 states: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13).

Commenting on this verse, Blessed Theophylact states:

One might argue: “It is true that he who does not fulfill the law is accursed, and that faith justifies. But how do we know that the curse has been lifted? We fear that having once been under the yoke of the law, we still remain under that curse.” Anticipating such an objection, Paul demonstrates that the curse has been removed through Christ. He paid the price by Himself becoming the curse and thereby redeeming us from the condemnation of the law. Christ (in His human nature) escaped that curse by fulfilling the law, but we, unable to fulfill it, were guilty under the law. This is like an innocent man who chooses to die in place of a guilty man condemned to death. Therefore, Christ accepted the curse of being hung from a tree and thereby loosed the curse to which we are liable for not fulfilling the law. This was a curse that lay upon us, but not upon Him, because He fulfilled the law perfectly, committing no sin.

This comment by Blessed Theophylact echoes that of St. John Chrysostom, who centuries earlier stated of this verse:

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law” (Deuteronomy 27:26). To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22). And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

These two comments both agree in the principle of substitution, where the innocent takes the place of the guilty, dying in his place. In the place of the guilty, Christ received a curse in order to die in his place. Christ received the punishment of the curse in the place of the cursed, and so both of these comments agree on the principle of penalty. In this penal substitution both commentators also agree on the principle of atonement, that Christ paid the price of sin, delivering and redeeming sinful man from the law he was guilty of breaking, having Himself fulfilled the law perfectly. Therefore, both commentators agree to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Deal-Breaker: Voting Christian in a Democratic Constitutional Republic

In approaching the intersection between Orthodoxy and voting, it is vital to distinguish between a political personality and a political platform. In a Republic we do not vote for a personality as much as we vote for a platform. To get lost in personality in regards to political advocacy is a cul de sac.

That being said, if a platform explicitly and directly advocates sin, such as the sin of legalized and even federally funded abortion, then to vote in favor of that platform is to endorse and even participate in that sin, and therefore to be guilty of it. This kind of situation is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. A Christian cannot guiltlessly vote for a platform whose substance includes the explicit advocacy of sin.

The foregoing is different from a situation in which a platform does not advocate some sin, but where some sin may seek to attach itself as a consequence of that platform's position. For the sin which may be consequent to that platform is not necessary to the platform itself. Although the sin may be a result of that platform at the moment, it can be corrected because it is not necessary to the platform itself.

If the position of abortion is a direct platform position of some Party, then it is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. That does not necessitate a vote for any other Party if that Party also has a Platform for direct advocacy of sin, but it does at minimum remove that other Party with a Platform sin from legitimate consideration for an Orthodox Christian.

At this point a confusion may arise, for it could be the case that, say, the Liberal Party has a better policy than the Conservative Party on some important issue, such as access to medical care. Let's say hypothetically this is the case. Now, the Conservative Party does not have a platform position which programmatically denies healthcare to anyone, but perhaps makes it difficult for some people to receive healthcare as an amenable consequence of their position. In other words, the Conservative Platform does not aim to legalize medical discrimination, even if it could happen that medical discrimination might occur as a result of their policy. If in fact this discrimination was the result, then it would be perfectly consistent with their Platform to also try to solve that or any problem created by their policies.

On the other hand, the Liberal Party has a direct aim to legalize the slaying of unborn children. Therefore, abortion is not an accident, not an unintended consequence of their policy, but a directly intended outcome. Thus, even though they may hypothetically have a better position re: access to medical care, their direct advocacy of abortion makes one voting for them for the sake of medical care yet complicit in every abortion that results from their larger platform.

It therefore does not matter if they have a better policy as regards health care. Infanticide is a sin, whereas voting for imperfect healthcare policies that can be amended through further development is not a sin because one is not voting for the unintended consequences of that policy. One can only be held responsible for what the platform directly and explicitly advocates. Although one is not thereby compelled to vote Conservative because of that fact, it would seem that since no Conservative policy directly advocates for medical discrimination, then voting Conservatively in this instance would not be the advocacy of any sin. Voting for the Liberal Party and its abortionistic Liberal Platform, however, certainly leaves the blood of dead infants on one's hands.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Novel Commandment? Coronavirus, Masks, and Access to Christ

“Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers” (Isaiah 58:3).

No one can add to the Creed. No one can invent novel commandments. A Christian’s right standing with and within the Church is established on the right confession of the Faith, consistent attendance at Services, and regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. The truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and handed down in the Church is the established norm for Christian life. This is summed up in the Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, and is binding upon the conscience of the Christian. No one has any right to add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). In this light it is worthwhile therefore to heed St. Jude’s admonition to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Across the planet, our local parishes debate over issues of policy and policy-implementation. Regional bishops, local priests, and parish councils all struggle with a cacophony of concerns, and so they wrestle in their various overlapping spheres with unsettling questions concerning what is safe, what is necessary, what is wise, what is scientific, what is sanitary, what is loving, what is risk, what is authoritative, what is legal, what is essential, and so many other questions. And so bishops, priests, and laity, all seek to do what appears right in their eyes. The result? Chaos. For “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). And even this smattering of considerations only scratches the surface, and so the saying becomes true of many of us, that “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). One thing, however, which seems fundamental to the foregoing considerations, and goes beyond distinguishing between such things as churches and schools, churches and seminaries, churches and businesses, is the simple question: What is sin?

Citing the New Testament teaching found in 1 John 3:4, St. Philaret of Moscow in his Longer Catechism (Question 156) answers the question, "What is sin?" stating: "Sin is the transgression of the law."

What is the Law? In Question 65 of the same Catechism, St. Philaret states that the doctrine of charity is "In the Ten Commandments of the Law of God." Question 485 states that the means we have to know good works from bad are: "The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments." Questions 489-491 state in sum that the Ten Commandments are the chief and general commandments, and that they are binding upon all Christians.

Significantly, Question 572 asks of the extent of obedience to those in authority: "How ought we to act, if it fall out that our parents or governors require of us any thing contrary to the faith or to the law of God?" Himself quoting Acts 4:19 (and hearkening more generally to that section of verses 1-31), St. Philaret's answer is plain:

In that case we should say to them, as the Apostles said to the rulers of the Jews: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; and we should be ready, for the sake of the faith and the law of God, to endure the consequences, whatever they may be.

That being the case, it is clear that the law of God as summarily contained in the Ten Commandments, being moreover the essence of the Biblical notion of love, is explicit, established, and inviolable. Furthermore, the conscience of man, evidencing the inward law of God written on the heart of man by God (Question 486), acts inwardly as a judge to either accuse or else excuse him and so cannot be bound by that which is not of God. Of course, fallen man being subjected to ignorance, delusion, and passion, his conscience is not infallible and therefore must be conformed to God's law, in this case the explicit law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments, they being reinforced in their binding authority. In sum, the law of God understood in its objective outward and conformably inward senses cannot be superseded or suppressed by any law of man, the Apostles even refusing to cease preaching Christ but suffering rather to be jailed - as simultaneously a civil and a religious matter - than to cease publicly proclaiming Christ.

Having answered the question as to what is authoritative in the life of a Christian, it is essential to point out the divine Law's finality as an authority regarding the duty of man. For example, the Preacher declares, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And not only is such obedience to the commandments the whole duty of man, God's holy law is also irreformable, as He even commands:

“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

And again:

“You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it!” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

In other words, it is not possible to invent new commandments. Nor can new sins be invented. Only by a necessary consequence can novel circumstances cause the unchanging principles of God's commandments to be applied to novel circumstances.

With that in mind, it is worth asking: Is mask-wearing a new holy law? Or put another way, is not wearing a mask a novel sin? Can a Christian's conscience be bound therefore to mask-wearing? This is not a petty question, for some would appear to be attempting to erect a novel commandment, and bind men's consciences to something that is not found in God's commandments. Since sin means to transgress God's law, and sin alienates man from God, then identifying sin as sin is no trivial matter. For excommunication can only occur in reference to the transgression of God's law and to unrepented sin. One cannot be excommunicated for not sinning, but for sinning. As it currently stands, many are essentially adding to God's commandments, even adding to the Creed that must be confessed in order to be a Christian in right standing with God and consequently in the Church. As it stands, the path to the Chalice has a new obstacle: Masks. 

Now, there is no authority in man or council to add to or subtract from God's law, the Creed, or from God's holy Word. We must be humble beneath them. The very Gospel book is placed on the head of the bishop as he is consecrated, proclaiming that his identity and his authority are under the Word of God, submitted to it utterly. In this way the Church proclaims that the essence and content of authority in the Church, the nature of a bishop's very overseeing, is naught but an expression of someone else’s will, namely the Lord Jesus Christ's as taught in His holy Word and preserved by His Bride, the Church. (It is worth noting that in principle the canons of the Orthodox Church are expressions, extrapolations, and/or articulations of Biblical teaching, not parallel additions to the deposit of faith, not a parallel authority. See Questions 17, 23, and 24 of St. Philaret's Longer Catechism) Therefore neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor parish council can add to or subtract from what is received in Scripture and Tradition. God's commandments must remain inviolate, for “the sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

With that in mind, it is not possible rightly to bind the conscience of a Christian by adding additional criteria through which he must qualify himself so as to approach the Chalice. Not wearing a mask cannot be turned into something that must be confessed as if it were a sin, which is to say contrary to the faith. No one has the power to make not wearing a mask such a sin, and therefore the mask cannot be turned into a confessional item upon which failure to confess (i.e. failure to wear) renders one barred from access to Christ in the Chalice. It is a simple point, but incontrovertible.

Therefore, it is impossible in principle to bind the conscience of a Christian such that he must wear a mask in order to be inside the Church and thus the local parish in a right-believing manner. It is evil to functionally excommunicate a right-believing Christian for not doing something that is not a sin, that is not of the essence of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." As Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In other words, we cannot add hindrances to a faithful Christian’s approach to the Chalice for the sake of a novel commandment of men.

As Christ warns:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

As He further explains:

He called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10-11)

This teaching of Christ was expressly directed at condemning arbitrary, man-made purity laws. It is also worth considering that this revelation was in relation to questions of hand-washing, which is also today considered a matter of basic hygiene and etiquette:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:2-3, 6)

As helpful - and even necessary - as it may be to wash one’s hands (or, for that matter, wear a mask), teaching it as a commandment such that one’s conscience is bound, and one’s access to God hindered, makes void the word of God and so is flatly rejected by Christ. As God in the flesh, Jesus knew perfectly well that washing one’s hands helped reduce disease, and yet He still persisted in rejecting it as a condition of right standing with God. And this principle is inviolable. We cannot add criteria which places an obstacle between Christ and His faithful children. This means that masks cannot be rendered a necessary condition for being considered a faithful Christian, and being faithful is the only true and binding condition by which a person may rightly stand in the Church. The faithful cannot be excluded from access to God for not abiding by the “commandments of men.”

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

By excluding the faithful from access to God by attempting to force the faithful to wear masks in order to enter and attend the sacred Assembly, we invent novel conditions by which Christians must abide. This is contrary to faith, for we cannot add to the deposit of faith. We cannot write new sins on the books, establish new commandments, bind consciences, and practically excommunicate the otherwise faithful according to the fluctuating mind of fallen man’s insights and policies, no matter how helpful those insights and policies might be, for only "the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

The Hard Middle: A Way Out of Intractable Conflict

What everyone knows is that the conflicts surrounding our current understanding of COVID are legion. Generally speaking, it has become clear that there are two sides, two methods for dealing with it. Each side, naturally, has more or less extreme versions within their camp, but by and large there are two sides, and these two sides each think the path of victory is through seeing the championing of their particular viewpoint.

But as a phenomenon of political conflict, what can be gleaned from observing these two sides? In other words, What can be observed of the two sides - while not at the same time entering into agreement or disagreement with either? Can this approach afford any helpful insight? I would say so, and I would like to take the next few paragraphs to explain why I think this is the case.

Phenomenologically, what can be observed is that there are two sides, two sides reflecting on and commenting on the nature of a disease. Thus, we are immediately confronted with the significant but simple fact that both sides are centered on the same problem. That fact is both a help and a complication. It is a help because it means the argument is shared, but it is a complication in that the problem can’t be removed by simply clarifying that both parties are talking about a different subject.

Now, in addressing the problem presented by this disease, both sides see hosts of consequences that are extremely critical. Here, however, is where the complication may in fact become helpful, which will be made clearer below. Both sides are submitting empirical arguments for their respective cases. Empirical arguments and hypotheses suggest a realm of fact, which ought to take the debate out of the realm of personal opinion, but here is where a certain temptation arises.

The temptation for each side is natural enough: to win their argument by making the better, stronger case. If one can resist this temptation long enough to observe the fact that both sides are citing the same types of sources, such as doctors, scientists, medical studies, and scientific research, then one will observe that this is not a settled scientific or medical argument, a situation unlike the debate of whether the earth is round or flat. This is significant because it indicates that both sides are seeking to be responsible and relevant, respect the same kinds of sources, methods, etc. Neither is arguing their case by referring to irrelevant or outdated sources.

This is the complication that ends up being helpful, because its very intractability will end up meaning that neither side ought to be legislated at the political level. Politicians are neither doctors nor scientists, and to side with one group at the expense of the other points to an arbitrary use of power and therefore an inherent injustice. Legislating unconfirmed science is to use the power of the state to force an unconfirmed conclusion, a political act which could very well cause far more harm to the cause of discovering the actual solution through peaceful and multi-faceted debate and research. 

It is a mistake to use the political sphere to decide matters of science, or force into public practice unverified conclusions and hypotheses. The strength of both sides thus indicates that the question cannot as of yet be settled. Like pulling rocks out of a rock slide that traps people underneath, the idea of “just doing something” is obviously folly, for to pull the wrong rocks risks the greater harm to those trapped underneath. In other words, to side arbitrarily in such a medically controversial case risks the possibility of magnifying the problem beyond all proportion, even if non-action would also cause (unconfirmed) problems.

The outcome of this present dilemma therefore means that the complicated and empirically oriented medical and scientific arguments are pushed into the arena of individual persuasion, which is to say personal belief, even if that personal belief is backed by expertise and (admittedly incomplete and controversial) medical research. Too many experts disagree in diametrically opposed ways. People are confusing belief about a medical situation with political legislation and policy advocacy. Involving the machine of politics means that what is fundamentally a matter of scientific and medical inquiry becomes a matter of political force.

Both sides have abundant support for their positions; both sides see their positions as preventing doomsday scenarios; both sides are trying to act out of compassion; both sides are trying to avert injustice. This fact being observed indicates that the only viable political action is to remain politically neutral until there is greater medical and scientific consensus. Legislating the belief of the experts on only one side of an issue necessarily creates havoc, for politicizing science and medicine in this way creates political ramifications unrelated to the science and medicine, even obstructing their progress.

This is the hard middle. It is not a via media, but an attentive neutrality, which is to say it responds to the controversy by stating there is not yet enough agreement in order to move to either side. Here one must remain firmly in the middle, refusing the temptation to seek to legislate a one-sided inclination.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Black Lives Matter. Why, Then, Does That Phrase Harm Black People?

The phrase, “black lives matter,” is true. It is absolutely true that black lives matter. There can be no doubt that black lives matter. To deny that black lives matter is an absurdity, and the vast majority of people recognize this and affirm it. 

What, then, is the problem with the phrase that “black lives matter” when it is used as a quasi-mandatory public confession, a slogan, or a test of allegiance to the fact that black lives matter? 

The problem with the phrase is that it reinforces the problem it seeks to alleviate. In converting into a confession, slogan, or mark of allegiance the truth that black lives matter, one re-segregates and therefore reinforces the problem which harms people of color. How does it do this?

Everytime people convert the truth that black lives matter into a slogan, the problem of racism is reinforced. This is why many people reject this slogan, not because they reject black people, or because they subtly think black lives don’t matter, but because they intuit that the problem of racism is being reinforced by the phrase. To reject racism and segregation is to see through the lie, the falsehood that distinction based on the color of skin has any place in responsible public discourse. 

Peace and unity cannot be established on the affirmation of the very categories that create racism in the first place. 

If segregation based on skin color is wrong, then alignment based on skin color is equally wrong. This fact is the elephant in the room. Many people are raised on the idea of some sort of color-based identity, and therefore their very sense of self is erroneously attached to the color of their skin. The solution is not then to erect some sort of color-based solidarity, but to align with people who understand the truth that skin-color is not a valid category for any kind of intentional or non-accidental social grouping. 

The problem of violence against people who have dark skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black problem” or a “white problem.” It is everyone’s problem equally. The problem of color division at the conceptual level is that it is a false construct that produces both alignment and therefore division based on skin color, which necessarily produces division at the cultural and political level. The solution is therefore to systematically teach and train people not to see past color, but to see that color literally has zero place in any kind of meaningful distinction-making between human beings. 

Black lives matter. But on what basis? Their blackness? No. People do not matter because of the color of their skin. People matter because they are created in God’s image and likeness. At no point does God divide or unite people on the basis of the color of their skin. To seek to divide or align people based on skin color is therefore to oppose God, to oppose His truth and His love. To divide or align people based on skin color is to introduce a foreign and alien principle into one’s thoughts about humanity. The idea of color-based race is a tool of the Devil.

Black human lives matter not because they are black, but because they are human lives. The belief that there are different color-based races of people is unbiblical and not consistent with Christian teaching. The bible speaks of cultural groups and ethnic diversity, but not in terms of race. The idea of color-based race is therefore a false construct, and is itself the essence of racism. Racism is therefore literally delusional. To hold to the belief that there are different "kinds" of men based on skin color is itself the true and underlying racism. If people hate or love each other under the false idea that there is such a thing as a race, that is racism.

God divided men into tribes and nations, and so there are different cultural groups and therefore ethnic diversity, but this is a far cry from the reductive notion that there is a kind of man called "black man" and a kind of man called "white man." There are Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Persian, Hatian, Dominican, Ethiopian, Nigerian, Russian, Polish, etc., but there are no skin-color based "races." God made ethnic diversity through division of languages which produced accidental divisions of heredity and customs, but the idea of dividing man in absolutist categories based on skin color is not Biblical and not made by God. There is no such thing as a "black man" or a “black culture” or a "white man" or a “white culture.” To believe there are these things is itself the problem because it is rooted in illegitimate social constructs and not in God. There are men with darker or lighter skin who come from this or that place and have this or that custom, but there is no "kind" of man or culture that is some color.

A truer refutation of racism, the idea of finding justice for a black or white person therefore makes no sense because there is no such thing as a “black person” or a “white person.” There are only people, human beings equally created in God’s image who through the accidents of history just happened to pick up some color diversity in their skin tones, diversities which do not equate to different “kinds” of human beings. Problems that effect people with darker colors of skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black person” problem, it is everyone’s problem; it is our problem and not their problem, and is not solved by affirming the value of blackness, but by executing justice in reference to universal human nature. 

This is why many people of good conscience reject the phrase, “black lives matter,” not because of a reduction of the value of this or that person’s life, just not establishing it in reference to the presence or absence of this or that color. And they are correct to do so. Justice is either blind or it is not justice. Black lives matter, but the blackness is accidental and so does not matter. 

The lie and crime of people with lighter skin against people with darker skin was to convince each other that their lighter or darker skin mattered, and then to erect criminal and inhumane social constructs and brutal mistreatment on this basis. But, like a Trojan Horse, associating “mattering” with skin color is a travesty for it smuggles in the Godless lie. Sadly, this lie that skin color has intrinsic meaning is still being spread, and this is why the phrase "black lives matter" harms black people.

In conclusion, to attempt to erect a slogan, public confession, or affirmation of solidarity on the basis of the accidental features of a human person, whether their height, weight, sex, eye, hair, or skin color, wealth or poverty, place of origin, or any of these kinds of things is to reject and exclude the possibility of justice and to ensure that racism will never end, harming the very people it is attempting to affirm. Due to the constant reinforcement of sensual paradigms and cultural ignorance, however, the ideation of color-based race is a difficult lie to see through, and it takes courage and integrity to see through it. But it must be done for the sake of truth and love, for diversity of color does not equate to diversity of kinds of people.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping.