Here is an interesting and provocative post, from the "Left2Right" blog, by Don Herzog, "Egging on the Conscientious Public Official." Herzog is addressing a recent statement by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, of the Pontifical Council for the Family:
All Christians, including state employees, have a duty to avail themselves of conscientious objection because the law of which we are speaking inflicts a deep moral wound on the Christian faith.
Cardinal Trujillo was reacting, apparently, to the impending enactment of same-sex marriage in Spain. Herzog writes:
I don't mind if the Church instructs its priests not to perform same-sex marriages. That, obviously, is a religious judgment it's free to make. (If you think it should be up to the priests or parishes, you're pretending the Church is quite Protestant.) For the same reason, I would mind very much if Spain's government tried to coerce any church into performing such ceremonies. I don't mind if public officials who are legally required to marry gay and lesbian couples balk and resign their posts. I don't much mind if they conscientiously refuse and then try to stay in office. What should the government do if they refuse? It could fire them. Or it could blink and ignore the refusal, figuring there's no point trampling on their consciences when other officials will do their duty and no couple will be seriously inconvenienced. But a government that looks like it's giving into bullying — even bullying of the most principled sort, from a hugely dignified Church — is in trouble. . . .
Relax, no one in Spain's government is asking my advice. But I'd tell them that if they can't figure out a persuasive way of suggesting that permitting conscientious objection is very much their own decision, they should promptly fire every single public official who refuses to perform his allotted legal duties. Yet the Church's posture means that Spain will almost surely look like it's climbing down under pressure if it lets the refractory mayors refuse to perform the wedding ceremonies.
This is not an argument about the overwhelming value of same-sex marriage. It is an argument about jurisdiction, driven by my worry that the Church has just exceeded its own rightful sphere of authority. . . . Older readers will recall that in the American presidential election of 1960, JFK had to persuade anxious audiences that he would not take his marching orders from the Vatican. I'd like to think we're long past the time when devout Catholics running for office would trigger such anxieties. But whether we are is in part up to the Church.
Read the whole thing. One quick question, or doubt, comes to mind: I am inclined to think Herzog is right to point out that Catholic public officials who refuse (in the absence of some kind of conscientious-objector provisions) to comply with the law (even a law they regard as unjust or unwise) probably cannot reasonably expect to keep their jobs. That said, I'm not sure Herzog is right that "the Church has just exceeded its own rightful sphere of authority." While Herzog and I agree, I'm sure, that the Church lacks authority to enact or rescind civil laws, I wonder if Herzog really thinks that the Church "exceed[s] its own rightful sphere of authority" by doing what Trujillo has done, namely, advise Catholics as to (what he regards as) the content and implications of their professed Catholic faith -- specifically, as to their "duty to avail themselves of conscientious objection."
[I assume that neither John Noonan nor Peter Steinfels need any introduction to MOJ readers.]
The New York Times May 22, 2005
'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma
By PETER STEINFELS
FOUR decades ago, Roman Catholics were hit over the head by revisions
of church teaching and practice authorized by the world's bishops at
the Second Vatican Council. If the language of the Mass, prohibition of
meat on Friday and, most striking, the church's unrelenting contrast
between its truths and the errors of every other religion could be
altered, what couldn't be? Doctrine on contraception? Divorce and
remarriage? Capital punishment? Same-sex relationships? Ordination of
women?
If religions are alive, as Catholicism surely is, they change. But
while some changes may reflect a justifiable, even necessary,
adaptation to new knowledge or circumstances, others may be a trimming
of religious truth. How do you tell the difference? It is a question
brought into sharp focus again with the death of Pope John Paul II and
the election of Benedict XVI.
Historically, Catholicism solved the problem of change simply by
denying it. Understandings of the Trinity, the priesthood, the papacy,
the Mass and the sacraments that emerged over a long time were
projected back into New Testament texts. Theologians joked that when a
pope or other official circuitously introduced a modification of church
teaching, he would begin, ''As the church has always taught. . . .''
Such denial, still widespread, means that examining change in official
teaching -- or what became known in the 19th century as ''development
of doctrine'' -- poses two challenges: first, to establish that
alterations -- some more than minor -- have unquestionably occurred;
and second, to show how they can be reconciled with the church's claim
to preach the same essential message Jesus and his disciples did 2,000
years ago, presumably deriving criteria that can help distinguish
legitimate evolution in the future from deviations or betrayals.
Among American Catholics, John T. Noonan Jr. is specially situated for
this pursuit. He is a distinguished law professor; a judge on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and the author of
many books on jurisprudence, legal history and ethics, and church law.
In the 1960's, when a papal commission re-examined Catholic teaching on
contraception, a magisterial 1965 study by Noonan, tracing the history
of the doctrine, was widely used to support change. In the 70's, in
equally learned arguments, he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling for
a right to abortion and campaigned for a constitutional amendment to
protect the unborn. On the appeals court since 1986, he is known for
granting stays of execution to death-row prisoners. So he is impossible
to place in the polarized geography of liberals and conservatives --
Catholic and non-Catholic. . . .
[John Courtney] Murray declared 40 years ago that development of doctrine ''is the
underlying issue'' of Vatican II. It remains fundamental for
Catholicism, Islam and other faiths too. What Noonan brings to it in
this invaluable book is unblinking honesty about the record of the
church to which he is deeply devoted. That is a standard for anyone
wishing to pursue the conversation.
[To read the rest--and it's certainly worth reading (on slavery, etc.)--click here.] _______________
Readers of this blog may be interested in a debate about civil marriage that was took place this past week over at Legal Affairs. The two debaters: Mary Lynn Shanley, professor of political science at Vassar College, and Linda McClain, professor of law at Hofstra University. Here is Legal Affairs' introduction to the debate:
Marriage comes with legal benefits, like the
right to visit a partner in the hospital. Opening civil unions to
same-sex partners would offer such legal benefits to homosexual
couples, while reserving the word "marriage" for unions between
heterosexuals. But some people suggest that, instead, the state should
do away with marriage as a legal category altogether and adopt a
universal system of civil unions open to all couples, while leaving
marriage to churches, mosques, and synagogues.
Should states abolish marriage?
To print out and/or read the debate, click here. _______________
[From the May 20th Commonweal. To read the whole piece, click here.]
The New Pope
An Orthodox View John Garvey
[I]n the attitudes of [John Paul II and Benedict XVI] toward internal Catholic matters there is something many Orthodox find
a bit disturbing. While the outreach to other religions is most
welcome, the style of internal church governance is less so. The
emergence of the idea of collegiality during the Second Vatican Council
struck a sympathetic chord in many Orthodox observers. Orthodox
governance is conciliar, as was governance in the ancient church, and a
return to this sensibility after a millennium of Roman centralization
was promising, as was a return to patristic sources and a turning away
from an almost exclusively Thomistic official Catholic theology. And
John Paul II, with his knowledge of contemporary philosophy, seemed
committed to learning from (for example) twentieth-century
phenomenology, even as he respected the ancient and medieval sources.
But under John Paul the Catholic Church moved away from the
conciliarity that had shown signs of development under Paul VI;
authority was recentralized, and there was a move away from the
authority of bishops, and of bishops’ councils. Collegiality was a
principle, but not really a practice.
Then there was the way in which theological
controversies were handled. Catholics were told that the idea of
women’s ordination could not even be discussed: it was not, Rome said,
in the church’s power to make a change in that direction. I can’t help
contrasting this with the atmosphere in Orthodoxy. While women are not
about to be ordained by any Orthodox bishop, and I have little doubt
that the majority of our bishops would oppose the ordination of women,
such prominent Orthodox as the late Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh
(Anthony Bloom) and Bishop Kallistos of Diokeleia (Kallistos Ware) have
said in recent years that Orthodox must face this question seriously,
and Metropolitan Anthony made it clear that he was in favor of women’s
ordination.
I understand what John Paul and the then Cardinal
Ratzinger thought they were up against. The latter got much negative
press when he spoke about the dangers of relativism in his homily at
the beginning of the conclave. He has a point, one also made in the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2000 statement Dominus
Iesus, a document he had much to do with. The tone of that statement
was unduly negative. Still, it was right to say that theologians move
away from Christian orthodoxy when they suggest that salvation can be
found independently from Christ-which is not to say that only
Christians or only Catholics can be saved, as some newspaper accounts
wrongly suggested Dominus Iesus had said. It is rather to say that if
anyone is saved, it is because of what Jesus did on the cross and in
rising from the dead. If he did not save everyone, he did not save
anyone. The tone, though, of Dominus Iesus was unnecessarily
condescending toward other Christian traditions and to non-Christian
religions. And then there is the way some theologians were handled:
silencing and excommunication (in the case of the Sri Lankan theologian
Tissa Balasuriya, who was reinstated a year later) could have been
avoided. It should be enough simply to say that such and such is not
Catholic theology, and it does not seem unreasonable to say that it may
not be represented as such. To Orthodox and other observers, the
Vatican’s “shut up and submit” attitude looks too much like the
authoritarianism anti-Catholics have always charged the Roman church
with.
The question raised by John Paul II in Ut unum sint-is
there a way the Petrine ministry could be exercised that would be
acceptable or of some service to Orthodox and other Christians?-is an
important one. A couple of answers: as long as it includes the idea
that all power flows from Rome, and that all power to appoint or remove
bishops is centered there, and none is based in local churches, no. As
long as the idea of papal infallibility is in place, with its
implication that the pope is a bishop uniquely unlike any other bishop,
no. An authority which simply hands things down is not authoritative
but in fact truly irresponsible. Persuasion is essential in a world
where people increasingly leave Christianity, not usually for some
other religion (though the movement of many Latin Americans from
Catholicism to Pentecostalism is a serious challenge), but more often
for nothing at all. There are depths beyond dogma; there is a profound,
divine silence from which dogma is born, and it is also the place from
which a deep listening may be done. A pope who could listen, who could
truly understand (even as he disagrees with) the many currents of
thought in the whole of the Christian tradition, would be helpful,
would be exercising the ministry of the servant of the servants of God.
He has to do more than listen, of course, but that deep listening-to
which Benedict XVI alluded in his first homily as pope-is an essential
beginning. _______________
Here is a link to the abstract of an interesting new paper by Professor Frank Ravitch, and law-and-religion expert at Michigan State:
Courts have repeatedly struggled with issues raised when the government displays religious objects and symbols or such objects are displayed by others on government property. Cases have involved objects such as Ten Commandments displays, creches (nativity scenes), Latin crosses, menorahs, and Christmas trees. The results in these cases, especially in cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, have been the subject of a great deal of criticism. The criticism has often focused on the desacrilization of religious objects or on the failure to evaluate the impact such objects have on religious outsiders. This article asserts that the courts and those criticizing them have generally overlooked or undervalued the significance of treating religious objects as legal subjects in the first place.
Religious objects and religious symbolism generally do not lend themselves well to analysis under any of the legal tests developed by the Supreme Court, but of course, courts do not have the luxury of ignoring issues related to religious symbolism when such issues are appropriately raised by parties. Nor should they. Both the courts and their critics would face an easier and more fruitful task if they more carefully considered the objects addressed in religious symbolism cases.
When a court evaluates a case involving religious objects it must subject those objects to the prevailing legal rules, norms, and analysis. It thus makes them legal subjects. This creates interpretive problems because of the potentially varied symbolic meaning of many religious objects and the various messages such objects can hold for various groups. It also raises questions regarding the nature of "religious objects" since many symbolism cases involve objects that courts suggest exude varying levels of religiosity depending on their context, and which some critics suggest may or may not be perceived as religious depending on the perceiver's interpretive presumptions. This article directly confronts these concerns and provides a workable framework for addressing the interpretive difficulties raised when courts must treat religious objects as legal subjects.
A very quick question: I wonder if we need to distinguish religious "symbols" from religious "objects"? A consecrated Host is different from a creche, after all. Can the law take account of this difference?
Here is a transcript of Archbishop Chaput's remarks, delivered today at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, on the place of religious believers and claims in public and political life:
Catholics see politics as part of the history of salvation. For us, no one is a minor actor in that drama. Each person is important. And one of the most important duties we have is to use our gifts in every way possible for the glory of God and for the common good. That's why Catholics and other Christians have always taken an active role in public life. What we believe about God shapes how we think about men and women. It also shapes what we do about promoting human dignity.
Today's national discussion about religion and politics is sometimes so very strange. If God is the center of our lives, then of course that fact will influence our behavior, including our political decisions. That's natural and healthy. What's unnatural and unhealthy is the kind of public square where religious faith is seen as unwelcome and dangerous. But that seems to be exactly what some people want: a public square stripped of God and stripped of religious faith. Our duty, if we're serious about being Catholics, is to not let that happen. But our work as citizens doesn't end there. Our bigger task is to help renew American public life by committing ourselves ever more deeply to our Catholic faith -- and acting like we really mean it.
Here's another bit, that reminded me of some things that Michael Perry has written, and also Notre Dame's Paul Weithman:
Democracy and pluralism depend on people of conviction fighting for what they believe through public debate - peacefully, legally, charitably and justly; but also vigorously and without excuses. Divorcing our personal convictions from our public choices and actions is not "good manners." On the contrary, it can be a very serious kind of theft from the moral treasury of the nation, because the most precious thing anyone can bring to any political conversation is an honest witness to what he or she really believes.
Tony Blair’s majority might have disappeared at the election if
Catholic voters had not remained loyal to Labour. The results of a MORI
survey for The Tablet reveals the role of religion at the ballot box.
Britain
might be one of the most secular nations in Europe, but the religious
vote still plays a powerful part in the life of the country. According
to MORI surveys conducted for The Tablet the votes of Catholics gave
Tony Blair the edge in Labour’s narrow victory.
At Christianitytoday.com, Lauren Winner has an article, excerpted from her new book, on "chastity." She cites the prevalence of premarital sex and extramarital affairs among evangelical Christians and writes:
All this suggests to me that our usual strategies for helping people cope with sexuality are not working. Repeating biblical teachings about sex is simply not enough. Urging self-discipline isn't enough. Reminding people of the psychological cost of premarital sex or infidelity is not enough. What we need is something larger and deeper: a clear vision of what chastity ultimately is and the most important context in which it is practiced.
Discipled Sex What is chastity? One way of putting it is that chastity is doing sex in the body of Christ—doing sex in a way that befits the body of Christ, and that keeps you grounded, and bounded, in the community.
Winner's book is called Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity (Brazos Press 2005). In a brief note in the new issue of First Things that I just received (but is not online yet), Richard Neuhaus sees some overlap between the discussion of sex in Winner's book and the "theology of the body" articulated by John Paul II.
Tony Blair’s majority might have disappeared at the election if
Catholic voters had not remained loyal to Labour. The results of a MORI
survey for The Tablet reveals the role of religion at the ballot box.