Archbishop William Levada's agreeing to waive dimlomatic immunity and be deposed in January in the U.S. overshadowed, at least outside of San Francisco, another of his last official acts as Archbishop of San Francisco, to wit, his signing a letter of intent to sell the church and real estate of St. Brigid Parish to the Academy of Art University. St. Brigid was closed back in 1994 by then-Archbishop John Quinn as a part of a major closing and re-organizing project that "looked to the future," long before we had heard of "the clergy and pedophilia" crisis and scandal. Archbishop Quinn, after extensive but troubled and troublesome canonical process, closed some twenty per-cent of the Archdiocese's parishes, a few of which managed to see themselves re-opened in the same or different canonical status within a short time.
The closing of St. Brigid Parish was among the most fiercely opposed, in part because of canonical irregularities in the process (to name just one, it appears that the pastor of the neighboring parish in Pacific Heights [St. Vincent de Paul], who was formerly was a curate at St. Brigid's, was on the committee that voted to close St. Brigid), in part because of the thriving conditions in the parish (a fact not reflected in, indeed variously obscured in, the report issued by the Archdiocese, but known by me from personal experience as a parishoner there in childhood and then again during law school in Berkeley and widely attested), and in part because of the sheer magnificence of this place of Catholic worship over more than a century. St. Brigid church is one the most lovely places of worship in a city known for its beauty, a city blessed with such splendid church buildings as St. Mary's Cathedral, Grace Cathedral, St. Patrick's, and St. Dominics, to name just a few).
The fervent and loyal parishoners of St. Brigid were aided in their multiplex efforts to see their parish re-opend by the San Francisco Chronicle's publishing leaked documents that tended to show that the Archdiocese was particularly eager for the proceeds of the sale of the property at the corner of Van Ness Ave. and Broadway, prime real estate by any accounting, good for almost anything -- except, of course, to house a Catholic parish, a parish that had nearly a million dollars in the bank (that then made its way into the Archdiocese's accounts) and that agreed, in response to arguments of distributive justice posed by Archbishop Quinn, to pay to retro-fit not only St. Brigid but also a "poor" parish of the Archbishop's choosing. (It is virtually beyond question that the Archdiocese greatly exaggerated the costs necessary to retro-fit St. Brigid church).
After eleven years of prayer vigils and efforts that succeeded in getting the church declared an historical landmark, St. Brigid Church has escaped the wrecking ball now to be used for "community and public assemblies." Les McDonald, real estate manager for the Archdiocese, assures that the sale will not be concluded if the use to which the University will put the church "goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church." As Cordelia in Brideshead Revisited knew, there was nothing about closing the chapel at Brideshead that violated Church teaching; it was only that from now on, every day it was to be as on Good Friday.
Archbishop Levada has made no secret of the fact that the church that lasted eleven years after it was closed -- others were razed with breathaking promptness -- will be sold to pay to settle law suits. My firm conviction is that Archbishop Levada has done his best in an impossible situation. The church never should have been closed, but it seemed to some who closed it that there was insufficient reason to preserve for another generation a house of worship that comes once in the history of a city. Quinn was gone not longer after his decisions took effect, lecturing at Oxford on the need to revise our understandings of the Petrine office to conform, in part, to the authority of particular churches throughout the world. Those who knew St. Brigid on the day the parish closed know now that this was an exemplary parish, a place of worthy worship and devoted service to the local church and city. Yes, the Archdiocese of San Fransisco suffers from a shortage of vocations to the priesthood, and that shortage was given as a reason militating in favor of closing St. Brigid. But can we wonder at the shortage of priests when viable faith communities are dispersed to sell real estate and art (and a mighty Ruffatti organ) bought by the faithful at great personal cost to themselves and their families to the glory of God and in service of His worship? Archbishop O'Malley of Boston is right that the buildings serve, and are not identical with, the Church. In San Francisco, when St. Brigid opens its doors to "community and public assemblies" after the altar stone has been removed, the Church will be the worse for it.
I report this in sadness, but in the hope that broader awareness of how these things happen will help to prevent repeat performances. Back when Archbishop Quinn closed St. Brigid, back when I was among those petitioning Rome to review and vacate the decision to close St. Brigid, I was sure that the loss that has come to pass would be prevented.
It's easy to kick around "fundamentalists," and I agree with the posts below (here and here) to the extent they warn of the dangers accompanying an individualist, privatized approach to the interpretation of scripture. However, there is a more pressing danger among Catholics, I believe, in that very few individuals think scripture reading outside church is even necessary. I vividly recall talking with a Catholic who openly condemned the practice of individual bible study among Catholics, emphasizing that "The Church owns the Bible!" Indeed, as this 2001 poll reflects, only 23% of Catholics read the Bible outside of church within the past week. (That's more than 30 points below Protestants and only 14 points above atheists.) Certainly fundamentalists need to rediscover tradition and community in their approach to scripture; they could, however, teach Catholics a thing or two about the study and knowledge of scripture as a centerpiece of an individual's faith formation.
Rob
Villanova law prof James Maule reminds me that something akin to human endowment taxation (the subject of my earlier query) is seen in child support law, specifically the computation of child support contributions:
The purpose is to prevent parents from deliberately reducing income (which is used in the tables from which child support obligations are determined). Of course, the reasons for using "potential income" (weakly defined) in the child support context don't necessarily mean that using "potential income" (however defined) in a revenue collecting process is appropriate.
Although I can't find it on-line, I do remember a case from New York this year in which the judge effectively precluded a divorced dad from leaving law practice to pursue a seminary degree. I guess I don't have that much of a problem with an earning capacity / human endowment approach when it comes to our pre-existing obligations (I'm not sure what feasible alternative there could be), but assigning a value to every individual for taxation purposes still seems a bit heavy-handed. Catholic legal theory would, of course, support the idea that "to whom much is given, much is expected," (Luke 12:48) but that's a call to stewardship and self-directed responsibility, not a license to have the state figure out how "gifted" you are, then hand you a bill.
Rob
At SSRN, you can download Rob Vischer's paper, "Legal Advice as Moral Perspective," and an article co-authored by Dean John Garvey and my colleague Amy Coney Barrett, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases." Check 'em out. (Thanks to Larry Solum).
Rick
In response to Rick's post about "truth in texts", some aspects of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1994 Document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church run parallel to Karen Armstrong's critique. I think it's a good departure point for any conversation on this topic - here's a taste:
Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
Amy
A few days ago, in the Guardian, Karen Armstrong -- author of, among other things, "A History of God" and "The Battle for God" -- published this essay, "Unholy Strictures," in which she contends that "it is wrong -- and dangerous -- to believe that literal truth can be found in religious texts":
Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.
In Armstrong's view, "[w] distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense. There has recently been much discussion about the way Muslim terrorists interpret the Qur'an. Does the Qur'an really instruct Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they find them? Does it promise the suicide bomber instant paradise and 70 virgins? If so, Islam is clearly chronically prone to terrorism. These debates have often been confused by an inadequate understanding of the way scripture works."
"Part of the problem," she continues, "is that we are now reading our scriptures instead of listening to them. When, for example, Christian fundamentalists argue about the Bible, they hurl texts back and forth competitively, citing chapter and verse in a kind of spiritual tennis match. But this detailed familiarity with the Bible was impossible before the modern invention of printing made it feasible for everybody to own a copy and before widespread literacy - an essentially modern phenomenon - enabled them to read it for themselves. . . . Hitherto the scriptures had always been transmitted orally, in a ritual context that, like a great theatrical production, put them in a special frame of mind. . . ."
And:
Historians have noted that the shift from oral to written scripture often results in strident, misplaced certainty. Reading gives people the impression that they have an immediate grasp of their scripture; they are not compelled by a teacher to appreciate its complexity. Without the aesthetic and ethical disciplines of ritual, they can approach a text in a purely cerebral fashion, missing the emotive and therapeutic aspects of its stories and instructions.
Solitary reading also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others that do not chime with their own predilections. . . .
Armstrong's hostility to those she describes as "fundamentalists" is, for me, a bit off-putting. Still, I think she makes some interesting and important points. Certainly, there are Christians, and streams in Christianity, that are too confident in the ability of the well meaning, solitary reader to concordance-hop through the Scriptures and find the Truth. (That said, it was not entirely clear from Armstrong's essay that she thinks "Truth" -- as opposed, perhaps, to "meaning"? -- is really what is ever found in religious texts). In any event, perhaps, she and Sandy Levinson could have an interesting conversation about constitutional interpretation . . . (see this post on Levinson's "Constitutional Faith").
Rick
