Greg's Response to Timothy Radcliffe

Greg's response is precisely the response that needed to be made, in my judgment. After one has read Timothy Radcliffe's statement and then Greg's response, the next--and obvious--question is whether there isn't a "middle way". (A middle way that, I suspect, Radcliffe, Dominican that he is, would on reflection endorse. But that's not important.) Two points of departure in thinking our way through to a middle way: (1) The magisterium of the Church has sometimes been quite wrong--embarassingly so--in the positions it has taken. (2) There are positions as to which there is an enduring consensus among Catholics and other Christians--a consensus so settled and enduring as to be moral-theological bedrock for us.

So: It is easy to conclude that one cannot plausibly think that one is in communion with the Church--or, more broadly, with one's brothers and sisters in Christ--if one is a racist or an anti-semite. But it is not only not easy to conclude, it is implausible to conclude, in my judgment, that one is *not* in communion with the Church just because one rejects the magisterium's teaching on contraception or same-sex unions. (What *is* the magisterium's position on same-sex unions? See the statement I posted yesterday by the Vatican's nuncio to Spain.) Obviously, there is no consensus among us Catholics as to the magisterium's teaching on contraception or same-sex unions--much less a consensus so enduring as to be moral-theological bedrock for us.

I have taken some steps in the direction of developing a middle way in my book, Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy (Cambridge 2003). If you're interested, take a look at chapter 5: "Catholics, the Magisterium, and Same-Sex Unions: An Argument for Independent Judgment". (I notice that Mark Sargent has posted his review of my book on this blog.)