Here is a link to a new statement by the Bishops, "Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium." There's some really good stuff (and also, I'm afraid, some clunky cliches about "young people" as a "resource", etc.) in the statement. Here is a taste:
Young people of the third millennium must be a source of energy and leadership in our Church and our nation. Therefore, we must provide young people with an academically rigorous and doctrinally sound program of education and faith formation designed to strengthen their union with Christ and his Church. Catholic schools collaborate with parents and guardians in raising and forming their children as families struggle with the changing and challenging cultural and moral contexts in which they find themselves. Catholic schools provide young people with sound Church teaching through a broad-based curriculum, where faith and culture are intertwined in all areas of a school’s life. By equipping our young people with a sound education, rooted in the Gospel message, the Person of Jesus Christ, and rich in the cherished traditions and liturgical practices of our faith, we ensure that they have the foundation to live morally and uprightly in our complex modern world. This unique Catholic identity makes our Catholic elementary and secondary schools “schools for the human person” and allows them to fill a critical role in the future life of our Church, our country, and our world (Catholic Schools on the Threshold, no. 9). It is made abundantly clear in an unbroken list of statements, from the documents of the Second Vatican Council to Pope John Paul II’s 1999 exhortation The Church in America (Ecclesia in America), that Catholic schools play a vital role in the evangelizing mission of the Church. They are the privileged environment in which Christian education is carried out . . . Catholic
schools are at once places of evangelization, of complete formation, of inculturation, of
apprenticeship in a lively dialogue between young people of different religions and social
backgrounds. (Catholic Schools on the Threshold of the Third Millennium, no. 11)
I was pleased, in particular, by the Bishops' strong and explicit endorsement of educational-choice programs.
Advocacy is not just the responsibility of parents and teachers, but of all members of the Catholic community. As the primary educators of their children, parents have the right to choose the school best suited for them. The entire Catholic community should be encouraged to advocate for parental school choice and personal and corporate tax credits, which will help parents to fulfill their responsibility in educating their children. . . .
Parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of their children
(Pierce v. Society of Sisters), and we call on the entire Catholic community to join in advocating for the opportunities and resources to implement this right through constitutionally permissible programs and legislation . . . .
In some states, so-called “Blaine” amendments, which ban or severely limit assistance to private and/or religious schools, make the attainment of this goal very difficult, if not impossible. These amendments are part of an anti-religious and, more specifically, anti-Catholic legacy in our nation’s history. We need to advocate for the repeal of these relics of unfortunate bigotry.
The primary and most powerful obstacles to school choice are the teachers unions, many members of which are Catholics. Do these members do enough to challenge their unions (which also, of course, do many good things) about their implacable hostility to choice-based reforms?
Also welcome, in my view, were the Bishops' clear challenges to Catholic laypeople to take more seriously their stewardship and social-justice obligations, and -- even more important -- the connection between those obligations and supporting Catholic schools.
We call on the entire Catholic community—clergy, religious, and laity—to assist in addressing
the critical financial questions that continue to face our Catholic schools. This will require the Catholic community to make both personal and financial sacrifices to overcome these financial challenges. The burden of supporting our Catholic schools can no longer be placed exclusively on the individual parishes that have schools and on parents who pay tuition. This will require all Catholics, including those in parishes without schools, to focus on the spirituality of stewardship. The future of Catholic school education depends on the entire Catholic community embracing wholeheartedly the concept of stewardship of time, talent, and treasure, and translating stewardship into concrete action.
It is unfortunate, but true, that many Catholics (in my experience) seem to regard Catholic schools as (a) the business and concern of parents with school-age children only; or (b) helpful back-up choices for those who live in areas with lousy public schools. This statement connects Catholic schools to the heart of the Church's ministry. One wants to be charitable and pastoral, of course, but I wonder if the Church does enough to challenge Catholic parents who can, but don't, send their children to Catholic schools?
The statement ends on a rock-solid note:
As we, the Catholic bishops of the United States, and the entire Catholic community continue our journey through the twenty-first century, it remains our duty to model the Person of Jesus Christ, to teach the Gospel, and to evangelize our culture. We are convinced that Catholic elementary and secondary schools play a critical role in this endeavor. “Thus it follows that the work of the school is irreplaceable and the investment of human and material resources in the school becomes a prophetic choice . . . it is still of vital importance even in our time” (Catholic Schools on the Threshold, no. 21).
Thanks to my student, Chris Pearsall (formerly with the USCCB) for alerting me to the new statement.
Rick
The various posts (here and here and here) about the United Church of Christ's recent resolutions reminded me of an article I hand out to my students every semester, "The Sign of the Cross and Jurisprudence," by Notre Dame's beloved contracts scholar, Ed Murphy (R.I.P.). He wrote:
Every class I have taught in Notre Dame Law School has begun with the same action and the same words. I have made the ancient Sign of the Cross, while saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." What has this to do with law and legal education? A good question.
He also noted, later on:
[T]here are many people who are receptive to the idea of Jesus Christ as Savior who experience difficulty with a necessary corollary, viz., Jesus Christ as Lord. Here one confronts the commands of the Savior, His laws, stipulations as to how we are to live our lives and how society should be governed. Indeed, there are professing Christians who insist that Christian morality and law pertain exclusively to personal salvation and should in no way be authoritative or determinative in areas of public policy. This is implicitly a denial of God's sovereignty and opens the way for "other gods" to rule the world. There are, of course, no shortage of "other gods" eager to oblige. By this view Jesus may be one's personal "savior," but He is not "lord" or "king." Jesus is thus rendered irrelevant to the world, and Christian influence in worldly matters becomes weak and impotent.
What does it mean, I wonder -- for those of us who are lawyers and legal scholars, living in a pluralistic, secular (i.e., not run by the Church), democracy -- that "Jesus is Lord"?
Rick
For those interested in the evolving relationship between evangelicals and Catholics, a new article by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? (derived from their forthcoming book of the same name), is a must-read. Of particular interest is their reporting on notable recent evangelical conversions to Catholicism, asking their subjects not just the reasons for their conversions, but what they lost along the way. BC philosophy prof Peter Kreeft is one example:
What does Kreeft feel he lost and gained? He gained an appreciation for the richness of God's mystery. Having come to think of Protestant theology as overly infected with Descartes' scientific view of reason, Kreeft learned to appreciate "wisdom rather than mere logical consistency, insight rather than mere calculation." He also learned to worship God through all of his senses, not merely the mouth and ears of Protestantism. Perhaps most important, he found himself swimming within the two-thousand-year stream of historical Christianity. But Kreeft also speaks of losses. He inherited from his evangelical roots a serious concern for truth that he finds sadly missing among many Catholics. For example, although he finds Catholic theology quite clear on the subject of justification by grace through faith, "well over 90 percent of the students I have polled … expect to go to Heaven because they tried, or did their best, or had compassionate feelings to everyone, or were sincere. They hardly ever mention Jesus." And he misses music. He remembers evangelical worship with "beautiful hymns, for which I would gladly exchange the new, flat, unmusical, wimpy 'liturgical responses' no one sings in our masses." Kreeft envisions a time when all of these losses will be redeemed. "I think in Heaven, Protestants will teach Catholics to sing and Catholics will teach Protestants to dance and sculpt."
As a former evangelical, I know the feeling. I'm consistently surprised by how quickly the sanctuary empties out after communion, how infrequently the homily diverts from the "do good to others" theme, and how most parishes I've found seem to think that spiritual formation and education stop in childhood. (I was pleased to find one parish with an "adult education" committee, only to learn that its only task was to make sure that the pamphlet racks in the back of the church were filled.) Indeed, even for the youngsters, there is much to be desired -- e.g., on a recent Sunday as we picked up our daughter from her "children's liturgy," we discovered the class watching this video. Couldn't quite make out the spiritual connection.
Then again, don't get me started on the pitfalls of an evangelical upbringing. In this regard, Noll and Nystrom remind us that:
evangelicals who remain highly critical of Catholic theology and practice have much to teach members of both traditions. Their persistence in criticism points to genuine weaknesses within Catholicism as well as to outdated prejudices. Both bodies can also become self-corrective as they listen to firsthand accounts of conversion.
Rob
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Thanks to Michael for uncovering the substitute resolution passed by the UCC, but I'm puzzled by the perceived need to propose a substitute. What is objectionable about the original resolution? The only thing I can decipher is its statement that "the Lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ" is not an optional doctrine for UCC members and pastors. But shouldn't one who joins a Christian community be required to believe that Jesus is Lord? What else can a Christian believe?
Perhaps the problem with the resolution is that those who proposed it are known to be "fundamentalists." This is a term that seems to be used with the same sort of pejorative abandon as "liberal" was back in the 1988 presidential campaign. Are they fundamentalists because they want to require members to believe that Jesus is Lord, or because they oppose gay marriage, or for some other reason? Gay marriage and the divinity of Christ seem to be readily separable issues. It strikes me that the original resolution was much less political than the substitute one; I'm wondering if the embrace of the substitute stemmed more from its implicit (and justified, in my view) repudiation of the Religious Right than from any doctrinal substance.
Rob
After reading Rob's post on the UCC (here) and Mark's followup (here), I thought I had better do some investigating. I suspected that the matter was more complicated than one might have inferred from the posts. A friend of mine is a UCC minister, a scripture scholar, and the best homilist I have ever heard. He writes:
I'm going to fax a resolution passed at our recent UCC Southern Conference annual meeting: "A Substitute Resolution: Jesus is Lord." This one passed instead of another put forth by our fundamentalist group. The latter did, in fact, have the tone that this doctrine is "required" of all church members, and, I think, was clearly intended to stir up a fight (as was another, calling for us to affirm that marriage is only between one man and one woman). I didn't go to the meeting, but our delegates and all of us are thrilled that our resolutions passed, and the others did not (the marriage one was tabled for further discussion, and a study committee is to be appointed).
Here is the text of the resolution that passed:
A SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION:
JESUS IS LORD
The Southern Conference of the United Church of Christ joins its voice with Christians throughout the ages to declare that Jesus Christ is Lord.
We recognize that this confession is both radical and counter-cultural.
In declaring that Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is Lord, we confess that country, flag and patriotism are not Lord.
In declaring that Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is Lord, we confess that capitalism, consumerism and the American way of life are not Lord.
In declaring that Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is Lord, we confess that neither democracy nor any other form of government is our Lord, and that our freedom is bestowed not by the force of arms but by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In declaring that Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is Lord, we confess that our sole loyalty is to Jesus and to him only; any principality or power but Jesus who seeks to lay claim to lour loyalty is little more than a vain idol.
It is by the grace of this Lord that we are called. Through his strength and mercy we will seek to follow where he leads.
_______________
Michael P.
After noting that the "preferential option for the poor" may be, and is, invoked in good faith by both the "left" and the "right" in discussions of economic policy, Mark asks:
[O]f what value is the concept of "the preferential option for the poor," if it is so elastic as to contain such widely disparate economic ideologies? What does the phrase add to how we make choices about economic policies and the legal infrastructure for supporting and expressing them if it can be used so promiscuously? What sense does it make to talk about Michael Novak and a Catholic socialist both being able to invoke the preferential option for the poor?
I want to say that, in my view, and notwithstanding its "elastic[ity]", it does make sense to talk about "Michael Novak and a Catholic socialist both being able to invoke the preferential option for the poor?" The Preferential Option disciplines -- at least it should! -- the economic-policy thinking of both the left and right: It requires those on the "right" (like me, I suppose) to always ask, "do we support non-intervention, or resist government intervention, in this case because we believe that it will serve the common good, properly understood, and -- in particular -- will serve the special needs of the poor? What reasons, grounded in those needs, support non-intervention in this case?" On the other hand, I think that "Catholic socialist[s]" need discipline, too. They need to be challenged: "Is it really the case that this intervention or regulation actually serves the needs and promotes the authentic flourishing of the poor? Or, are we simply assuming -- perhaps out of ideology, perhaps out of habit -- that command-and-control strategies and regulatory policies accomplish these ends, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary?"
Mark also says:
I tend toward a pragmatism on this question -- whatever works for the poor works. Sometimes the solution is market-based, sometimes it requires government intervention. I am troubled by the reflexive anti-statism of the arguments on the right; it is a categorical hostlity that cuts far too broadly. What distinguishes the Option is its radical insistence upon attention to the poor in policymaking. What mechanism does the market possess that will ensure such attention without the state? I'm not sure that we can simply assume that a rising tide will lift all boats.
I agree with much of this. I would add, though -- and I think that this is consistent with CST -- that other values and principles will sometimes constrain a "whatever works"-style pragmatism, even in the service of the poor's interests. (I am confident that Mark and I agree on this point. That is, even a commitment to the Preferential Option would not justify all government -- or non-government -- actions allegedly designed to benefit the poor. An arbitrary, or discriminatory, complete confiscation of some persons' private property, followed by redistribution, would not, in my view, necessary be justified by the Preferential Option). As for whether the market possesses a "mechanism . . . that will ensure such attention without the state": The claim would not be, I think, that the market necessarily "attends", in a conscious or purposeful way, specifically to the interests of the poor, but rather that those interests are more likely to be advanced, generally speaking, in the conditions of a reasonably free and fair market. Mark is right that we cannot "assume" that a rising tide lifts all boats, but we can observe that, in fact, it often does, and also observe that economic stagnation or stasis tends to fall heavily on the poor.
I'm probably more "reflexive[ly] anti-statis[t]" than Mark is, but I think we agree that the public authority has the right and duty (subject to the rule of law, structural and other constitutional constraints, etc.) to craft policies consistent with the Preferential Option. In my view, though, such "policies" will often (not always, to be sure) involve supporting -- and, perhaps, getting out of the way of -- the market. Mark and I agree, though -- as would Michael Novak -- that the normative principle doing the work in designing and implementing policy is not so much the "market" itself, but rather the Preferential Option.
Rick
