The memory of the Shoah is
holy and its implications for Christian moral reflection profound. Among the
many ideas that flow from meditation on the Holocaust, two appear in seeming
tension. On the one hand is the determination that any consideration of Nazi
crimes produces to see that it never happens again. On the other, comes a
reverence for the memory of those who died—as individuals and as members of
communities targeted for elimination. The moral imperative compels us to be
ever vigilant in rooting out the structures of evil that give rise to such
terror, while the reverence imperative cautions us to never cheapen or profane
the memory of those who were lost.
It is my conviction that in
the debate over the HHS Mandate notable leaders in the Christian community have
failed to show reverence for the memory of the Holocaust and have in their zeal
to force a change by the Obama Administration manipulated the moral imperative
of the Holocaust in ways injurious to the common good. I have in mind in
particular the best-selling author Eric Metaxas, biographer of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer and William Wilberforce. Metaxas has been a very public ally of the
bishops, having coauthored an important essay in the Wall Street Journal with
Cardinal Wuerhl and a Jewish leader. In that essay no mention was made of
Germany and Nazism, but in a number of different venues Metaxas has been
pushing the idea that the religious freedom limitations of the HHS Mandate are
strikingly similar to some set of undefined early Nazi laws. In a talk at the
Shrine of the Immaculate Conception’s Catholic Information Center Metaxas said:
“This [the HHS Mandate debate] is so oddly similar to where
Bonhoeffer found himself [in the early stages of Nazi Germany]… If we don’t
fight now, if we don’t really use our bullets now, we will have no fight five
years from now…it’s the millimeter that is that line which we cross. I’m sorry
to say that I see these parallels, I really wish I didn’t…We are getting a
second chance…so we don’t make the same mistakes and go down the same road.”
In February, following an
address that President Obama attended and also spoke at for the National Prayer
Breakfast, Metaxas appeared on
MSNBC and filled in the historical record ever so minimally saying that
“In the early 30s little things was happening where the state was bullying the
churches. No one spoke up. In the beginning it always starts our really, really
small. We need to understand as Americans if we do not see this as a bright
line in the sand…eventually this kind of government overreach will reach you.”
While Metaxas has thrown out these serious charges he has never, to my
knowledge, and certainly not anywhere available on line or in print,
substantiated these charges with what would generally be considered a sustained
argument. He has never, for instance, cited an early Nazi law that he thinks is
comparable to the HHS Mandate in terms of religious freedom, nor has he ever
explained how the HHS Mandate will lead us “down the same road” that led to the
Holocaust.
Metaxas shows every
intention of continuing to use this unsubstantiated rhetoric. In a speech just weeks ago at Fr. Sirico’s Acton Institute
Metaxas again made the charge as part of an explanation for why the Fortnight
of Freedom is so important to America’s future. His many followers on twitter
have been reading constant reminders of the Fortnight of Freedom and about the “unprecedented abridgment of religious freedom” posed by the HHS Mandate, as a recent tweet put it.
And a recent commentary for the widely read and listened to Breakpoint program
of the late Charles Colson’s ministry featured Metaxas urging his largely
Protestant audience to give full support for the Fortnight, though without
reference to the German laws.
Metaxas’ cavalier use of the
memory of the Holocaust era is striking for someone whose biography has been so
widely read and praised. His standing as a commentator on religion and public
life owes itself to that reputation. In fact, it earned him an audience with
President Obama at the recent National Prayer Breakfast which Metaxas and the
president addressed. Metaxas owes it to the president, and to the memory of the
Shoah, to either explain and justify his charges or retract them as publicly as
he made them. Of course to say this does not in anyway imply agreement with the
HHS Mandate. One critic of Metaxas’ language, the noted Protestant ecumenist
John Armstrong, has said, “I
disagree with the President about how to solve the health care crisis, rather
profoundly if I am pushed, but I do not think his actions are remotely like
Hitler's in the 1920s and early 1930s…Christians cannot continue to violate
civility and expect to be heard when their voice is truly important.”
It is sad that in our day, we need to define terms like civility at all. There are many points of contention in any debate but we must approach our conversations with meekness and civil intentions. That is, if we call ourselves 'followers of The Way.' We should never start our debates with polemical labeling. Rather, we should begin any conversation as any conversation should-with respect. I know both you and John Armstrong believe this and practice this. Let us all try.
ReplyDelete