Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

Well the quote is about the value of Scholastic thought and its quality of precision developed in the quiet surroundings of the monastery. It does not suggest that because they developed thought in those propitious conditions in the 1200s, then today we should rediscover the RCC as a host for productive thought. That's quite a big stretch of interpretation. This is what I call twisting Steiner's throat to make him say what he never intended let alone said.

It's unclear if you see the value of precise logical thinking and a love for that thinking process (as exemplified in Thomism, which is the reason for the Steiner quote) in our current conditions, and how the Church still provides that function to some extent, whereas practically no other widespread institutions do so. The whole question revolves around a regression to pre-intellectual soul qualities, so such an impulse that unfolded in the 1200s is certainly relevant to what can mitigate against that regression today. Monastic life can still be fostered through the Church. I know such considerations don't conveniently fit the narrative that the Church is absolutely useless today, but that isn't a legitimate reason to avoid them. It's not about 'interpreting Steiner' so as to find justification for some position ("Steiner said thus and thus, so I am right"), but using his observations to independently explore the evolutionary circumstances we face, forging our own freely won ideas in this domain.

[Federica]

Well the quote is about the value of Scholastic thought and its quality of precision developed in the quiet surroundings of the monastery. It does not suggest that because they developed thought in those propitious conditions in the 1200s, then today we should rediscover the RCC as a host for productive thought. That's quite a big stretch of interpretation. This is what I call twisting Steiner's throat to make him say what he never intended let alone said.

It's unclear if you see the value of precise logical thinking and a love for that thinking process (as exemplified in Thomism, which is the reason for the Steiner quote) in our current conditions, and how the Church still provides that function to some extent, whereas practically no other widespread institutions do so. The whole question revolves around a regression to pre-intellectual soul qualities, so such an impulse that unfolded in the 1200s is certainly relevant to what can mitigate against that regression today. Monastic life can still be fostered through the Church. I know such considerations don't conveniently fit the narrative that the Church is absolutely useless today, but that isn't a legitimate reason to avoid them. It's not about 'interpreting Steiner' so as to find justification for some position ("Steiner said thus and thus, so I am right"), but using his observations to independently explore the evolutionary circumstances we face, forging our own freely won ideas in this domain.

I do see the value of precise logical thinking, and the value of loving it. What I do not see (but acknowledge as your position) is that the RCC still provides that function to some extent. The question of regression is real, but I see no evident connection between Thomism, the RCC, and its supposed function of mitigating the regression. Max Leyf, for example, in his academic role in a faculty of philosophy - and other dedicated professors of philosophy or theology - seem to me 100 times more in a position to encourage rediscovery of Scholasticism rather than a priest in a Catholic church - admitting that spreading Scholasticism is a reasonable means, a means with reasonable chances of success, to effectively mitigate the ongoing regression.

This said, what disturbs me is that, immediately after arguing for the necessity of the RCC as bulwark against regressive impulses (which you are absolutely entitled to do) you said: "Steiner lectured on this aspect as well - the Church still offers souls a 'quiet place' to live alone with their thoughts and experience the process of logical thinking"

This is untrue. The quote is not about that aspect, not even tangentially or partially. I don't think this is a good method.

[AshvinP]

Well the quote is about the value of Scholastic thought and its quality of precision developed in the quiet surroundings of the monastery. It does not suggest that because they developed thought in those propitious conditions in the 1200s, then today we should rediscover the RCC as a host for productive thought. That's quite a big stretch of interpretation. This is what I call twisting Steiner's throat to make him say what he never intended let alone said.

It's unclear if you see the value of precise logical thinking and a love for that thinking process (as exemplified in Thomism, which is the reason for the Steiner quote) in our current conditions, and how the Church still provides that function to some extent, whereas practically no other widespread institutions do so. The whole question revolves around a regression to pre-intellectual soul qualities, so such an impulse that unfolded in the 1200s is certainly relevant to what can mitigate against that regression today. Monastic life can still be fostered through the Church. I know such considerations don't conveniently fit the narrative that the Church is absolutely useless today, but that isn't a legitimate reason to avoid them. It's not about 'interpreting Steiner' so as to find justification for some position ("Steiner said thus and thus, so I am right"), but using his observations to independently explore the evolutionary circumstances we face, forging our own freely won ideas in this domain.

I do see the value of precise logical thinking, and the value of loving it. What I do not see (but acknowledge as your position) is that the RCC still provides that function to some extent. The question of regression is real, but I see no evident connection between Thomism, the RCC, and its supposed function of mitigating the regression. Max Leyf, for example, in his academic role in a faculty of philosophy - and other dedicated professors of philosophy or theology - seem to me 100 times more in a position to encourage rediscovery of Scholasticism rather than a priest in a Catholic church - admitting that spreading Scholasticism is a reasonable means, a means with reasonable chances of success, to effectively mitigate the ongoing regression.

This said, what disturbs me is that, immediately after arguing for the necessity of the RCC as bulwark against regressive impulses (which you are absolutely entitled to do) you said: "Steiner lectured on this aspect as well - the Church still offers souls a 'quiet place' to live alone with their thoughts and experience the process of logical thinking"

This is untrue. The quote is not about that aspect, not even tangentially or partially. I don't think this is a good method.

I'm sorry this phrase disturbed you, and I should have added some more comments to clarify. The 'aspect' was referring to the Scholastic thinking process which has traditionally permeated the Church's theological teachings, referred to above. That is what Steiner helps us orient to in the quote. The quote is also relevant to what we have been discussing about the modern environment that swamps the intellectual soul in waves of disturbances, rendering it unable to live alone with its disciplined thinking process. That is the quintessential image of regression to the sentient soul. The "Church still offers souls a quiet place" part is my own observation based on simple facts of experience (which I presume neither Steiner nor anyone else would deny).

When we think of places of quiet solitude and reflection in the modern world, I think religious institutions immediately come to mind. Actually, I recently took a trip to Bangalore, India (population 14 million in a quite small area), and the only place where I wasn't bombarded with constant noise was at a temple. Many people visit such places to meditate and pray, and it is expected that everyone in the vicinity will respect that and keep commotion to a minimum. I don't think the average person appreciates just how chaotic the oscillations of inner life become when such quiet places aren't frequented, since they haven't differentiated that inner life much from the hustle and bustle of ordinary sensory existence. It simply becomes impossible to cultivate an ordered thinking process and corresponding enthusiasm for that process (in the sense of Scholasticism) in such conditions.

I hope it's clear that this idea stands on its own - the Steiner quote was not necessary at all, although I think such quotes can be helpful to get a better feel for the thinking process I am trying to point attention to, and which I see the Church (particularly the RCC, where there is a rich intellectually-rooted theological tradition) as uniquely capable of fostering for the average soul in the modern world. Remember, in this context, we are not speaking of souls who have found their way to the intuitive thinking path and are therefore inspired to steadfastly unfold a meditative life regardless of societal circumstances and pressures. We are instead dealing with intellectual souls who only have a karmic religious disposition to fall back on, so to speak, in the face of the modern environment that continually introduces disturbances from all directions.

The unique thing about the Catholic Church (compared to most other religious dominations) is precisely that individuals in positions of counsel and guidance are often schooled in the Western foundations of philosophy and theology. Many intellectually inclined souls can find a viable path to cultivate their rigorous thinking process through seminaries, for example. These are simply facts about the Church institution and its history that can hardly be denied. If anything, people (including most esotericists) often criticize the Church for holding so tightly to this intellectual tradition. It seems odd to then turn around and say that it yet has nothing to offer in spreading Scholasticism (not only the content, but the logical inner process), which is its direct intellectual heritage.

Regarding the relationship between Church and transgenderism, we see that on the one hand various denominations have not only encouraged compassion for the suffering involved in gender dysphoria, but also explicitly recognized gender transition. On the other hand, the RCC is opening towards the other denominations. Examples of this expansive strategy are, as previously mentioned, the rejection of the quality of Co-Redeemer for Maria, the subtle opening to same-sex relations - as Cleric noted - and the recent canonization of an ordinary boy, whose hobby was website building (with Catholic content). This one is also a technology-friendly move, that naturally expands the 'radius of sympathy' for the RCC in advantageous directions, of course. But even more directly, it's been this year when Cardinal Fernandez (the same who last week concluded the new appropriate stance with regards to Maria) began to soften the doctrinal RCC position on gender-affirming surgery, speaking at a theological conference. As reported:

"Vatican modifies position on “gender affirming” surgery. The Vatican appears to have modified its previous position against “gender-affirming” surgery and “gender theory” raising the possibility of “exceptional situations.” In early March, the Vatican published a speech by doctrine chief Cardinal Victor Fernández where he said, “there are cases outside the norm, such as strong dysphorias that can lead to an unbearable existence or even suicide. These exceptional situations must be evaluated with great care.”

We also know that the antipope Francis has made it possible for transgenders to be godparents. I notice that in the RCC, a godparent is "someone who bears witness to a child's baptism (christening) and later is willing to help in their catechesis, as well as their lifelong spiritual formation." Not insignificant that the RCC now deems such an educational role appropriate for a person who has undergone gender transition. I am not an expert in RCC matters and there are probably other relevant cases, but even only these ones mentioned here signal an intention to open to transgenderism, in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing these examples. On the rejection of the co-redemptrix aspect of Mary-Sophia (not sure how this is related to justifying transgenderism?), I don't find this too concerning, although I am admittedly ignorant of the theological nuances here. The cult of Mary-Sophia has been so overwhelmingly pronounced in the Catholic Church tradition (compared to other religious denominations) that it seems they could afford a move in the other direction, so to speak.

I also think it is in keeping with development of the intellectual and eventually spiritual soul that educational roles should not be denied to anyone based on outer characteristics, only on individual merit, and more importantly, the Vatican need not be the one evaluating the latter in one sweeping doctrinal gesture. Catholic parents should be trusted to use their faculty of discernment and determine whether another individual is fit to serve as godparent to their children.

The position on gender affirming surgery is concerning, however. I think that is a slippery slope and appealing to cases where they may be an "unbearable existence" seems quite illogical. Perhaps Rodriel can shed some more light on the nuances of the official position here.

[Federica]

The reply is short because I've only my phone with me.
Yes, sure, I agree that a church or cathedral is almost always a special, quiet place that invites prayer and introspection, probably more than an average university library. I appreciate it also, occasionally, although I'm not a member of any Church.
I should clarify that I have no antipathy for churches, churchgoers and clergy.

Regarding the examples I gave to illustrate the Church's attitude towards gender transition, they were meant to show an opening to other Christian denominations, which in turn explicitly recognize transgenderism.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

The position on gender affirming surgery is concerning, however. I think that is a slippery slope and appealing to cases where they may be an "unbearable existence" seems quite illogical. Perhaps Rodriel can shed some more light on the nuances of the official position here.

Sure, I'm happy to provide my perspective on this issue. In general I think many people, including large numbers of Catholics, have a difficult time understanding how the Catholic Church functions, especially in the current digital age. For instance, people are often scandalized when the Church doesn't take a position that falls directly within the boundaries of partisan politics, on one polarized side or the other. This is most obvious in news blurbs that say things like, "Pope delivers decisive win for LGBTQ but fails to budge on abortion." From within the faithful, we've heard for the past decade consistent angry cries over the "woke pope." Before that, liberal Catholics feared the spread of conservatism during the brief papacy of Benedict XVI. There is this widespread mistaken notion, perhaps held over from previous centuries, that the Church is somehow a political actor and that it should operate at the level of positivist earthly governance. Like we have discussed, this is simply not the function of the Church in the hypermodern era. The governing body of the Church (especially the Pope), guided by the Holy Spirit, knows this and consistently steers the flock away from the backward desire to devolve into partisan politics or to return to medievalism. This upsets everyone, because it ends up looking like the Church can't pick a side or is sending mixed signals. In reality, however, the Church is doing exactly what it should, in the face of enormous pressure to buckle to the opposed streams of popular demand.

A brief aside: In the early 20th century, Max Scheler described spirit as "impotent," meaning that the spiritual is the domain of non-compulsion. Spirit does not force anything in the physical world to happen but instead relies on free and mutually self-sacrificial participation. The Church in the 20th and 21st centuries has very much followed this clarified understanding of the nature of spirit in relation to its role.

Another thing people have trouble understanding is the various levels that the Church has to operate on simultaneously as a universal social organism. For instance, there is the important theological role of preserving and developing doctrine and the related but separate role of providing liturgical services and pastoral care to specific communities and ultimately to individuals. Complaints about developments within the Church often arise from failure to parse these levels properly in specific incidents. Cardinal Fernandez's comment about transgenderism is a great example. My personal assessment of the comment, seemingly indicating an "openness" to gender affirming surgery, is that this was a highly appropriate and even exemplary approach to the issue. Fernandez skillfully struck the difficult balance between doctrinal rigor and pastoral care, precisely clarifying that the Church is doctrinally opposed to such medical procedures but that, as human beings must in all cases be treated as individuals with infinite dignity, at the pastoral level the clergy are obligated to hear and consider every special plea or petition around the issue. This is basically a position of respect and humility which leaves room for moral creativity in specific circumstances that cannot be predicted or anticipated with total certainty. There is always the possibility that a special case will push doctrine beyond the limit of its intended applicability. In summary, this was a verbally delivered personal comment, on the level of pastoral care, on doctrinal statements regarding transgenderism contained in the publication Dignitas Infinita, which themselves remain unchanged by the comment.

The situation is very much the same around LGBTQ issues in general. In public perception, the pastoral level is confused with the doctrinal. Pope Francis's decision to "bless" same sex couples was in no way a move toward a doctrinal shift. It was simply a clarification that the Church wishes to be a home for all people and will not turn anyone away. However, the fact always stands that entering into full communion with the Church via the sacraments places difficult demands on people, and many of those demands run contrary to the dramatically loosened sexual mores of post 1960s culture. I find it perplexing how people think there could be any room whatsoever for sanctioning same sex sexual relations within an institution that prohibits any form of sexual behavior not directly open to procreation within a marital context. This is already a very heavy burden for straight, married couples. To think that a double standard would be allowed in this regard is a pretty glaring misunderstanding. That said, there have been laudable efforts within both Catholic and Orthodox communities over the past hundred years or so to find more robust and compassionate ways of dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Wherever there is suffering, as there is most definitely is around this issue, the Church seeks to be an instrument of the Lord's consolation.

Regarding the increasing ecumenism of the Church, this really has nothing to do with accepting the content or social positions of other religions. It's really the only viable path forward for a Universal Church amidst an increasingly universal world culture. If the Church is to be truly universal, it needs to be in relationship with all peoples and all streams. There is no other exoteric means of doing this than entering into and maintaining continuous dialogue. The Catholic Church has moved away from any shred of isolationism of its past, where external entities could be cut off like a cancer (this was never an essential feature but more of an egregoric manifestation), and has instead adopted the image of spheres of orbit around the altar which partake in the central mystery to varying degrees.

[Federica]

...

This comment will lack development, but in a nutshell, the idea of marked separation between the doctrinal and the pastoral seems to me at risk of becoming intellectual, counterproductive, and even materialist in a certain sense. It reminds me of what Steiner lamented with regards to modern medicine, that is the artificial, in practice catastrophic separation of pathology and therapy. In this connection, I notice the expression "how to deal with the issue of X" (in your post it is the issue of homosexuality, but it could be any "issue") instead of: how to deal with X.

[AshvinP]

The position on gender affirming surgery is concerning, however. I think that is a slippery slope and appealing to cases where they may be an "unbearable existence" seems quite illogical. Perhaps Rodriel can shed some more light on the nuances of the official position here.

Sure, I'm happy to provide my perspective on this issue. In general I think many people, including large numbers of Catholics, have a difficult time understanding how the Catholic Church functions, especially in the current digital age. For instance, people are often scandalized when the Church doesn't take a position that falls directly within the boundaries of partisan politics, on one polarized side or the other. This is most obvious in news blurbs that say things like, "Pope delivers decisive win for LGBTQ but fails to budge on abortion." From within the faithful, we've heard for the past decade consistent angry cries over the "woke pope." Before that, liberal Catholics feared the spread of conservatism during the brief papacy of Benedict XVI. There is this widespread mistaken notion, perhaps held over from previous centuries, that the Church is somehow a political actor and that it should operate at the level of positivist earthly governance. Like we have discussed, this is simply not the function of the Church in the hypermodern era. The governing body of the Church (especially the Pope), guided by the Holy Spirit, knows this and consistently steers the flock away from the backward desire to devolve into partisan politics or to return to medievalism. This upsets everyone, because it ends up looking like the Church can't pick a side or is sending mixed signals. In reality, however, the Church is doing exactly what it should, in the face of enormous pressure to buckle to the opposed streams of popular demand.

A brief aside: In the early 20th century, Max Scheler described spirit as "impotent," meaning that the spiritual is the domain of non-compulsion. Spirit does not force anything in the physical world to happen but instead relies on free and mutually self-sacrificial participation. The Church in the 20th and 21st centuries has very much followed this clarified understanding of the nature of spirit in relation to its role.

Another thing people have trouble understanding is the various levels that the Church has to operate on simultaneously as a universal social organism. For instance, there is the important theological role of preserving and developing doctrine and the related but separate role of providing liturgical services and pastoral care to specific communities and ultimately to individuals. Complaints about developments within the Church often arise from failure to parse these levels properly in specific incidents. Cardinal Fernandez's comment about transgenderism is a great example. My personal assessment of the comment, seemingly indicating an "openness" to gender affirming surgery, is that this was a highly appropriate and even exemplary approach to the issue. Fernandez skillfully struck the difficult balance between doctrinal rigor and pastoral care, precisely clarifying that the Church is doctrinally opposed to such medical procedures but that, as human beings must in all cases be treated as individuals with infinite dignity, at the pastoral level the clergy are obligated to hear and consider every special plea or petition around the issue. This is basically a position of respect and humility which leaves room for moral creativity in specific circumstances that cannot be predicted or anticipated with total certainty. There is always the possibility that a special case will push doctrine beyond the limit of its intended applicability. In summary, this was a verbally delivered personal comment, on the level of pastoral care, on doctrinal statements regarding transgenderism contained in the publication Dignitas Infinita, which themselves remain unchanged by the comment.

The situation is very much the same around LGBTQ issues in general. In public perception, the pastoral level is confused with the doctrinal. Pope Francis's decision to "bless" same sex couples was in no way a move toward a doctrinal shift. It was simply a clarification that the Church wishes to be a home for all people and will not turn anyone away. However, the fact always stands that entering into full communion with the Church via the sacraments places difficult demands on people, and many of those demands run contrary to the dramatically loosened sexual mores of post 1960s culture. I find it perplexing how people think there could be any room whatsoever for sanctioning same sex sexual relations within an institution that prohibits any form of sexual behavior not directly open to procreation within a marital context. This is already a very heavy burden for straight, married couples. To think that a double standard would be allowed in this regard is a pretty glaring misunderstanding. That said, there have been laudable efforts within both Catholic and Orthodox communities over the past hundred years or so to find more robust and compassionate ways of dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Wherever there is suffering, as there is most definitely is around this issue, the Church seeks to be an instrument of the Lord's consolation.

Regarding the increasing ecumenism of the Church, this really has nothing to do with accepting the content or social positions of other religions. It's really the only viable path forward for a Universal Church amidst an increasingly universal world culture. If the Church is to be truly universal, it needs to be in relationship with all peoples and all streams. There is no other exoteric means of doing this than entering into and maintaining continuous dialogue. The Catholic Church has moved away from any shred of isolationism of its past, where external entities could be cut off like a cancer (this was never an essential feature but more of an egregoric manifestation), and has instead adopted the image of spheres of orbit around the altar which partake in the central mystery to varying degrees.

Thank you, Rodriel, the above perspective is immensely helpful in orienting to the Church's subtle and multi-layered process. Above all, such perspectives help us keep our thinking process multi-layered and flexible, while also remaining grounded in the concrete and evolving constraints of the Earthly landscape rather than floating into general abstract ideas about 'the nature of transgenderism', the 'nature of the Church', and so on.

What you express above is also aligned with my previous indication that, from the perspective of certain esoteric circles, the Church is always placed in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. If it were to forcefully insert itself into partisan debates, then it would be regressing to its medieval world-policing functions. If it avoids such partisanship and tries to deftly navigate the issues, then it's capitulating to worldly powers and opinions. If it shuts out other denominations, then it's maintaining isolated group-soul consciousness, if it increases dialogue with other denominations, then it's once again capitulating and weakening its bulwark. And so on. It goes to show how, if we start with a preconceived narrative, the developments can always be seen as supporting that narrative. Of course, this can work the other way too, but in our time, there actually aren't too many who proclaim the Church should return to a central role within spiritual life, and most people in the Western world automatically view it with utmost distrust, skepticism, and suspicion.

In any case, those of us on the inner path become intimately familiar with how what we express or do can seem to frustrate and upset everyone around us (like family, friends, etc.), and therefore can empathize with how the Church is placed in a similar position in modern times.

[Federica]

There is this widespread mistaken notion, perhaps held over from previous centuries, that the Church is somehow a political actor and that it should operate at the level of positivist earthly governance. Like we have discussed, this is simply not the function of the Church in the hypermodern era.

It is also a question how the active diplomatic role of the RCC, its activity of influence on nation states and its role in the UN connect with what you say about the non political role of the Church. This excerpt is from a lecture given by Archbishop Jean-Louis Taurant on The presence of the Holy See in international organisations:

"Secretary General of the UN, Vatican City, the Pope, the Catholic Church: all show the complexity of the topic we wish to treat and reminds us that the Catholic Church is the only religious institution in the world to have access to diplomatic relations and to be very interested in international law.

She owes this to her universal and transnational organization.

She owes it to her Head, who, from the moment of his election in the conclave, assumes an international character.

Above all, she owes it to her history, as I shall try to show in this lecture.

The Holy See

In effect, it is important to make clear at once that the subject who enters into contact with the leading figures in international life is not the Catholic Church as a community of believers, nor the State of Vatican City - a miniscule support-State that guarantees the spiritual freedom of the Pope with the minimum territory - but the Holy See, namely, the Pope and the Roman Curia, universal and spiritual authority, unique centre of communion; a sovereign subject of international law, of a religious and moral nature."

Holy See's Presence in the International Organizations https://share.google/CfllqhfMQUOHR7NNO

[Federica]

It goes to show how, if we start with a preconceived narrative, the developments can always be seen as supporting that narrative.

Indeed! For once, let it be me telling you how you are feeling. You started with an evangelically inspired evil view on the RCC, and now you want to feel that you have become so evolved, nuanced etc. that you have freed yourself from your former opinions (but actually end up in the opposite position, "empathizing", as you say, with an institution, even comparing it to a human being, and putting it unassailable on a pedestal, as you have done above). Now you have revealed that no amount of objective elements would be enough to make you review your empathizing stance.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

There is this widespread mistaken notion, perhaps held over from previous centuries, that the Church is somehow a political actor and that it should operate at the level of positivist earthly governance. Like we have discussed, this is simply not the function of the Church in the hypermodern era.

It is also a question how the active diplomatic role of the RCC, its activity of influence on nation states and its role in the UN connect with what you say about the non political role of the Church. This excerpt is from a lecture given by Archbishop Jean-Louis Taurant on The presence of the Holy See in international organisations:

"Secretary General of the UN, Vatican City, the Pope, the Catholic Church: all show the complexity of the topic we wish to treat and reminds us that the Catholic Church is the only religious institution in the world to have access to diplomatic relations and to be very interested in international law.

She owes this to her universal and transnational organization.

She owes it to her Head, who, from the moment of his election in the conclave, assumes an international character.

Above all, she owes it to her history, as I shall try to show in this lecture.

The Holy See

In effect, it is important to make clear at once that the subject who enters into contact with the leading figures in international life is not the Catholic Church as a community of believers, nor the State of Vatican City - a miniscule support-State that guarantees the spiritual freedom of the Pope with the minimum territory - but the Holy See, namely, the Pope and the Roman Curia, universal and spiritual authority, unique centre of communion; a sovereign subject of international law, of a religious and moral nature."

Holy See's Presence in the International Organizations https://share.google/CfllqhfMQUOHR7NNO

This excerpt encapsulates the function of the Church very well, highlighting what might be referred to as its "metapolitical" nature. In Tomberg's The Art of the Good, he identifies three levels of "legal consciousness": positive law, natural law, and divine law. He points out (and this is all the way back in the 1940s) that law in the civilized world has degraded to the point of mere positivism. The Church is organized to have an organizing/harmonizing influence on the hierarchical interplay between the three levels. It therefore does not directly participate at the level of mere positivism -- again, much to the disappointment and even bewilderment of souls within and without its walls who have been completely subsumed within a positivist frame. This is why there are simultaneous cries of the Church's "wokeism" and "failure to adapt to modern society." Natural law, which was still an object of great concern during the Enlightenment and its American extension, is already beyond this framing. The Church not only serves to uphold natural law (which supervenes over positive law), but also divine law, which when brought to full expression is completely noncoercive and simultaneously universal and particular. It's good to recall that the Law was the crystallized image of the progressive revelation of the 'I' to the Hebrew people. In the era of the Gospel, that Law has become universally applicable to all of humanity via the instrumentality of the Church. It is protected as natural law and rises to divine law to the extent that individuals find it written on their hearts.