I attended a fascinating conference yesterday and today entitled "The Church in America, Leadership Roundtable 2004," sponsored by and held at the Wharton School here in Phildelphia. The conference was surprising in many ways, not least of all because of its location at the University of Pennsylvania, which is not noted for its friendliness to religion and the Catholic Church in particular. But it demonstrates Wharton's extraordinary ability to marshal the energy and money of its many successful grads, in this case committed Catholics deeply interested in their church. The conference gathered about 200 Catholic leaders, both lay and clerical, including many bishops, to talk about the Church as a problem in management. The group consisted of clerics (bishops, priests and nuns who run church institutions), academics (mostly Catholic university presidents and a few deans), CEOs, and some well known Catholic intellectualswriters/consultants (if that's a category). While it was genuinely fascinating, and one of the most civil Catholic conferences I've attended, it left me with a few qualms.
The organizors' assumptions were articulated in terms something like this:
1. The Church in America is on a "burning platform" (a term coined by former GE mogul Jack Welch); it must change or it will gradually fall apart; the status quo is not an option.
2. The key to survival and new growth is a mangerial revolution: the Church must abndon its "feudal" organization and way of doing business and adopt a "performance culture", accountability, modern human resources practices, modern market analysis and communication techniques, and strategic planning. This does not require applying a corporate model or abandoning the dioceses' autonomy; a sophisticated partnership model would be more appropriate.
3. None of that would be possible, however, without a radical expansion of the role of laity not just in parish life, but in leadership (not necessarily sacramental) roles at all levels.
My response to all this was a classic Catholic "Yes, but..." I certainly agree the Church is on a burning platform, that a managerial revolution is needed, particularly with respect to accountability, and recognition of the importance of the laity is not just a matter of necessity because of the disappearance of priests and nuns, but for sound theological reasons. Nevertheless, this analysis, while correct and helpful, overstates the importance of the managerial issues, because it does not explain adequately why the platform is burning. It is burning not just because many bishops have shown themselves to be inept or misguided managers, as the response to the sexual abuse cases has shown. It is burning, first, because the Church's core spiritual message is falling on increasingly deaf ears in a culture profoundly inimical to its beliefs and values, and, second, because Catholics are so divided among themselves about what Catholicism means and what it means to be a good Catholic. We can hire McKinsey or some other high powered business consultant to create a beautiful, well-engineered, gleaming managerial enterprise, but if it is producing the spiritual equivalent of buggy whips, it is still going to fail. My worry is that the Church's problems are of a different order than those that can be addressed by managerial remedies, even very important ones such as greater pastoral and financial accountability.
Of course, I don't want to set up too stark an antithesis here: better management will enable the Church's spiritual message to be conveyed more effectively, and its resources deployed more efficiently and with more credibility. Structural reforms that lend more dignity to the laity's (ESPECIALLY WOMEN"S) vocations and contributions will have a very positive spiritual effect. But, to mix metaphors, we need a wellspring of spiritual renewal to douse the flames on the burning platform.
-Mark
Matt Sharp (Vanderbilt law student) passed on to me the following letter from Senator Mark Dayton (D. Mn.) to Jason Adkins (Univ. of Minnesota law student) It raises some of the same separation of church and state issues that have been addressed multiple times on this blog, most recently in a post by Rick. In this letter, Senator Dayton advocates privatizing the institution of marriage (giving it to God) while Ceasar (the state) creates a new and different institution.
Any reactions?
“Dear Mr. Adkins:
The current frenzy to amend the United States Constitution on marriage is unwise and unnecessary. Tragically, it has aroused prejudices against gay men and lesbian women and destroyed some of the important progress in recent years toward understanding and tolerance.
In the Bible, Jesus says, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. Render unto God, that which is God's." I believe that "marriage," which is now used in both religious ceremonies and social contracts, should belong to God. In many church wedding services, marriage is described as "an institution created by God." They conclude, "Whom God has joined together, let no one cast asunder."
Thus, government should leave "marriage" to organized religions and their appointed authorities. Government should adopt a different term, such as "marital contract," to define the rights, responsibilities, and protections, which would be accorded any two people, above a certain age, who wish to enter into such a relationship.
We have a choice. We can force this divisive and destructive debate into a Constitutional amendment process, which would inflame ugly prejudices and cruel denunciations in every state for several years; or, we can use different words for two different actions: one religious and one civil. I support the second approach.
My best regards.
Sincerely,
Mark Dayton
United States Senator"
Thursday, July 8, 2004
Harvard Law Student Joshua Davey has posted some thoughts regarding Senator Kerry's recent statement , "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." However, Senator Kerry continued, "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. . . . We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
Now -- wholly and apart from the debate about pro-abortion-rights Catholic politicians and communion -- Senator Kerry's statement strikes me as quite unfortunate, for at least three reasons: First, the "Catholic belief" that abortion is a grave wrong is not (at least, at I understand it, the Church teaches that it is not) merely an "article of faith." No one is suggesting that Senator Kerry should support laws requiring affirmation of the Trinity or the Resurrection. It is, I think, a shame that so many Catholics seem to embrace uncritically the notion that we affirm the sanctity of life, and embrace other principles of Catholic Social Thought, *simply* as a matter of fideism.
Second, and accordingly, the "separation of church and state" imposes no constraints whatsoever on the right of Catholic legislators -- or any other legislators -- to support laws that limit or discourage abortion (any more than they constrain the right of Catholic legislators to oppose the death penalty, or support a "living wage"). The "separation of church and state" (properly understood) is, in my view, a crucial aspect of authentic religious freedom. That said, the Kennedy / Kerry / (Rawls?) idea that separationism imposes obligations of self-censorship or dis-integration on religious citizens is durable, but pernicious.
Third, Senator Kerry's statement seems to distract attention from what seems a much more interesting and challenging conversation, namely, the one proposed and engaged by Michael Perry in his recent book, "Under God." It seems to me that pro-life Catholic politicians and voters might well decide, for prudential reasons, that political realities and the fact of pluralism weigh against outright bans on abortion, or that a candidates' positions on other issues "outweigh" her mistaken views on abortion. And, as Perry argues, Catholics might well decide, for reasons *internal* to our faith (i.e., reasons not imposed by liberal theory) to avoid "faith based" arguments in certain public contexts. The (important) point, though, is that these decisions should not be regarded as Senator Kerry appears to regard them, i.e., as required by democratic morality or "the separation of church and state".
Rick
Tuesday, July 6, 2004
More than a year ago, the American Jewish Congress filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the participation of "A.C.E." (Alliance for Catholic Education) teachers in the federal Americorps program violates the Establishment Clause. In this opinion, Judge Gladys Kessler agreed, and granted AJC's motion for summary judgment. In a nutshell, "the government funding [i.e., the Americorps funds made available to ACE participants] . . . results in impermissible government indoctrination." (I should disclose that I participated in several discussions with lawyers defending the ACE program in this lawsuit.)
Rick
I am delighted to announce that the first holder of the John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies at Villanova University School of Law will be Patrick M. Brennan, formerly of Arizona State's law school. Patrick will assume the position effective August 1, 2004, and his inauguration will be held this fall. Needless to say, we are delighted that such an outstanding scholar will be joining our community to play a crucial role in helping us serve our mission as a Catholic and Augustinian institution. I will be posting a press release shortly that will provide more information about Patrick. PS - he will also be joining MOJ shortly as a blogista, and I am sure will make excellent contributions to our conversation.
-Mark
Sunday, July 4, 2004
Law-and-religion scholar Fred Gedicks is guest-blogging over at "Times and Seasons", which is said to be "quite possibly the most mawkish, yet influential, onymous Mormon group blog in history." I've learned a lot from Fred's work.
Rick
In addition to running the invaluable Legal Theory Blog, Professor Larry Solum has for several years been exploring and fleshing out the role of virtue ethics and aretaic theory in constitutional law. (Click here for "Virtue Jurisprudence: A Virtue-Centered Theory of Judging", and here for "Theorizing About Constitutional Interpretation: The Aretaic Turn").
Not surprisingly, then, one of Professor Solum's recent posts provide a welcome break from the usual gouge-out-the-eyes sameness that is "End of the Term" commentary about the Supreme Court and its work (e.g., "Justice O'Connor: Swing Vote"; "Court Divided on Hot-Button Issues"; "Scalia Cranky About O'Connorism," etc.). In "Swing Votes, Making Things Come Out Right, and the Virtue of Justice" (here), Solum takes up "two interacting phenomena. First, we have a closely divided court, and the division is especially prominent on a variety of key constitutional issues, including unenumerated rights and federalism. Second, the behavior of the Justices seems consistent with the theory that the Justices vote to produce the 'fair' or 'best' outcome, feeling only loosely constrained by the rules laid down--e.g. their own precedents, the constitutional text, statutory language, and so forth." And, with respect to these (relatively uncontroversial) observations, Solum suggests "that the interaction of these two phenomena is much more problematic than either would be by itself." That is, "(1) a closely divided court that is (2) results oriented poses a greater threat to the rule of law than would either phenomena standing alone."
In Solum's view, there *is* a solution to this problem, or "threat": "The key to the solution is rejection of the realist dogma that judges must be ideological. To put this point differently, we need to expand our model of judicial attitudes and dispositons and recognize that judges vary not only in their political ideology, but also in their judicial philosophies. Realist judging is not hard wired into the furniture of the universe; it is the result of particular forces, beliefs, and attitudes. And yet another way of making the point is this: formalism is a possibility." The key to realizing this possibility, Solum suggests, is "good judicial character, and especially . . . the virtue of justice--the disposition to decide cases on the basis of the rules laid down and the norms of the community and not on the basis of the judges' own perceptions of what the law should be."
Solum has developed his theory of judging in considerable detail. The theory might be of interest to Mirror of Justice readers and bloggers, given the centrality -- or, at least, the importance -- of aretaic theory in the Catholic intellectual tradition.
Rick
