Further to my posts yesterday on dotCommonweal http://commonwealmagazine.org/blog/ and below regarding differences between "left" and "right" Catholics is this interesting response from friend-of-MOJ Robbie George:
Dear Mark:
I just read your most recent posting on the MoJ website, and was a little perplexed by one thing you said.
"Of course, as the recent exchange between Robbie and Mike P and Eduardo suggests, those writers [referring, I believe, to Neuhaus, Weigel and George] regard themselves as speaking for the core of Catholicism, an assumption with which many of us would argue."
I know that you and I disagree about some questions on which the magisterium of the Church has not proposed a teaching as authoritative. But I was not aware of disagreements between us on teachings that have been so proposed. Are there such questions?
I try to be careful in my own public advocacy to distinguish between authoritative teachings of the Church (which I am happy to defend where defending them is within my competence) and views I happen to hold that are not authoritative teachings of the Church. If there is a sense in which I regard myself as "speaking for the core of Catholicism," it is in my willingness to defend teachings that the magisterium itself proposes as binding on the consciences of Catholics---or, to put it another way, teachings that call for assent of intellect and will pursuant to the norms articulated in Lumen Gentium. I do not purport to speak for "the core of Catholicism" in articulating or defending my views on issues not calling for such assent (everything from affirmative action and agricultural policy to the Patriot Act and welfare reform). I try to be very careful to avoid even the remote suggestion that my views on such issues represent the Catholic view. And, as you know, I publicly acknowledge that there are liberal Catholics who are as faithful to the teachings of the magisterium as I hope I am. Despite my differences with them on a wide variety of political questions, and even some moral ones on which the Church has not (yet) settled the matter, I regard them as speaking for the core of Catholicism every bit as faithfully as I seek to do.
Of course, I recognize that sometimes it is unclear what exactly the magisterium is proposing or whether it is proposing a certain teaching as binding the consciences of the faithful. The best example, I suppose, is the death penalty. There are good faith debates among intelligent and well-informed Catholics both about what exactly is being proposed in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism on the subject, and whether the exclusion of the death penalty, in the circumstances in which the developed teaching does exclude it, is being proposed by the magisterium as something to be held by the faithful as a binding norm. As I think you know, I believe that the magisterium is proposing that the death penalty cannot legitimately be used for retributive purposes and that this teaching is being proposed as a binding norm. (I guess I come out on the "liberal" side on this one.) Avery Dulles disagrees. But this case is different from the debates over, say, contraception or sodomy. On those issues, it's perfectly clear what the magisterium is proposing and it is equally clear that the teachings are proposed as binding norms. The issue in dispute (between, say, Michael Perry and myself) is whether the magisterium is right or wrong and whether Catholics are entitled to dissent from a teaching despite the fact that the magisterium is proposing it as an authoritative.
Anyway, these are my thoughts in reaction to your posting. I would be curious to know where you and I disagree, if in fact we do disagree. [end quote]
Robbie makes his usual helpful and precise distinctions. And Robbie is indeed always very careful to make clear when he is making arguments in terms of the magisterium and when he is arguing on purely secular terms. His arguments against abortion, for example, are a case in point; he has argued persuasively against it without any reference to Catholic religious principles. He asks, in essence, whether our differences are over the actual teachings of the magisterium, or over, in effect, those areas, where the magisterium has not spoken, or is not clear enough, to require the assent of the faithful. I would respond with the following distinctions:
1. Some would allow for a right of conscientious dissent from the magisterium -- e.g., Mike Perry on same sex marriage.
2. Some would countenance greater recognition of the evolution of doctrine and the magisterium over time -- e.g., Judge Noonan vs. Cardinal Dulles.
3. Some would have a conception of the Church as a very big tent ("here comes everybody") with a variety of views and practices which deserve at least some degree of toleration, versus a view of the Church as circle that should be drawn tighter, with a deeper commitment to doctrinal purity.
4. Much of the difference between the "sides," however, is over how they extract from Catholic principles an approach to social political and economic questions. Consider, for example, the differences between Michael Novak and the Acton Institute on one side and the US Bishops in "Economic Justice for All" and the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility on the other, over the fundamental conceptions of economic and social justice. Each side claims to derive their guiding principles from Catholic social teaching, and chastizes the other for incorporating secular ideolgies into their arguments. Sometimes this dispute is dismissed as a mere prudential disagreement over means, but I believe it is a fundamental disagreement over what is "Catholic."
5. Finally, there is a disagreement over priorities: the Bernardin seamless garment seems to some to express their deepest sense of being Catholic. For others, it is a gross overvaluation of issues about which Catholics can disagree and gross underevaluation of the grievous wrong of abortion.
This is a quick sketch of the fault lines -- there may be more, and I invite comment from Robbie and
Many years ago there appeared on television a public service announcement stressing the importance of education. This public service advertisement was for the United Negro College Fund and it concluded with the exhortation: “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”® I would like to suggest that a soul is also a terrible thing to waste if I can borrow from the registered trademark phrase of the UNCF.
I was planning on writing a different posting last night, but then I read Mark’s most recent posting on the March 10th statement issued by Cardinals McCarrick and Keeler and Bishop DiMarzio on the Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life. I also reread some earlier contributions to MOJ on related issues involving conscience, the writings of theologians who disagree with Church teachings, and the works of some of the very theologians who would support the views taken by the fifty-five members of Congress who issued the February 28th Statement of Principles on which I and others have previously commented.
Then I read an essay by Elizabeth Weil that appears in today’s New York Times Magazine entitled “A Wrongful Birth?” The question mark at the end of the title speaks volumes. Ms. Weil talks about a difficult case of a New York couple who had a child, A.J. is his name, whose life is affected by several serious genetic disorders. HERE But I came to realize that little A.J. is not the only person whose composition is flawed. We are all flawed in some ways—be it physical, intellectual, or spiritual. A.J. has a soul. So do his parents. And, so do we.
Regardless of who we are, from little A.J. to some person who has planned and executed terrible infractions of civilized conduct to all of us somewhere in between, we have an immortal soul whose objective is salvation and union with God. For those who are officials in public life, for those who elect or appoint these officials, and for those who fit into none of these categories, all need to be reminded of this universal truth about human nature—a truth that we who call ourselves Catholic hold.
With this reality in our consciousness, there is greater promise that no soul will go to waste by some other person’s deed. The three bishops who issued the March 10th statement seem to have this point in mind as they exercise their teaching authority. We, who are teachers in another context but who are also disciples, share in the responsibility to remind others as well as ourselves that no soul should go to waste. Jesus came not to save some but all.RJA sj
My colleague Robert Miller was kind enough to pass this along:
Catholic Democrats Scolded on Abortion
Religious News Service
Saturday, March 11, 2006; Page A07
Top U.S. Roman Catholic leaders told Democratic lawmakers yesterday that there is no wiggle room in church teaching on abortion and that they are duty-bound to work against "the destruction of unborn human life." The statement by three top leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a response to 55 Catholic Democrats in the House who issued a public statement Feb. 28 asking for room to disagree on abortion.
The bishops, in turn, said they were willing to work together on issues affecting the "poor and vulnerable" but would not budge on church teaching that says abortion is gravely immoral.
"While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions . . . Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring an end to the destruction of unborn human life," the bishops said.
The three bishops who signed the statement were Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, head of the bishops' Pro-Life Activities Committee; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, who heads a task force on Catholic politicians; and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, chairman of the bishops' Domestic Policy Committee.
Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), who spearheaded the letter on Capitol Hill, said in a statement that she appreciated the bishops' response but did not address the bishops' rejection of Catholic lawmakers' request to respectfully disagree with the church on abortion.
This obviously leaves less wiggle room that some Catholic politicians would wish with respect to the question of choice. But, does this mean that there is no room for prudential disagreement over the MEANS of reducing the destruction of human life in the existing political environment: criminalizing abortion vs. the more indirect combination of measures proposed by the Democrats?
Naomi Wolf has a blistering critique of what has become a highly successful and outrageously immoral genre of books for adolescent girls:
The great reads of adolescence have classically been critiques of the corrupt or banal adult world. It's sad if the point of reading for many girls now is no longer to take the adult world apart but to squeeze into it all the more compliantly. Sex and shopping take their places on a barren stage, as though, even for teenagers, these are the only dramas left.
Rick raises a good question about my post over at dotCommonweal re the dominance of the "extreme right" in Catholic discourse and in the general media, wondering whether I consider Father Neuhaus, George Weigel and others (Robbie George, for example) extreme. Whether one considers another "extreme," depends upon where one stands. More important, it depends upon where the "center" or the "core" is. Those of us who self-dentify as Commonweal Catholics tend to see ourselves as occupying a center position between more radical groups on the "left" (again, the term does not track entirely the political meaning of "left) such as Call to Action and writers such as Wills and Carroll, and the aforementioned writers on the right (same reservation re the political meaning of "right"), with whom we differ to varying degrees on a whole host of issues. Of course, as the recent exchange between Robbie and Mike P and Eduardo suggests, those writers regard themselves as speaking for the core of Catholicism, an assumption with which many of us would argue. Nevertheless, the secular press increasingly looks to that group as the voice of American Catholicism, which at least I regard as a problem.
Catholic Charities in Boston will no longer provide adoption services, according to this report, "because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children." (Now, that's not quite right, is it? Catholic Charities is not objecting to a "state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children," but to a requirement that Catholic Charities place children with gays and lesbians.) According to the report, 8 of the 42 members of the Catholic Charities board -- which had unanimously recommended submitting to the requirement -- have resigned in protest. What's next?
Gov. Mitt Romney said he planned to file a bill that would allow religious organizations to seek an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination laws to provide adoption services.
"This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children," Romney said in a statement. "It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children.
I'm not sure that's right, either. I would have thought that, particularly in the legal arena, the rights of adults are -- sometimes -- just as important as the needs of children. The tricky thing -- isn't it? -- is identifying those rights and needs.
Ann Althouse links to an interesting article about the demand among adoptive parents for children with Down's Syndrome, and asks some provocative questions. She closes with this: "Would it make a difference [to your decision to give birth to a child diagnosed with Down's] if those waiting to become adoptive parents had put their names on the list to discourage abortion or if, on the other hand, they simply had a special love for persons with Down syndrome?"
Mark reports that MOJ's circle of related blogs is expanding (Prawfsblawg, Bainbridge, and now Commonweal -- maybe we can even count First Things). This is great news. We're counting on lots of traffic directed to MOJ from dotCommonweal, Mark!
The Catholic conversation today, however, seems to be less of a conversation than a competition of monologues from what can be called left and right, faute de mieux. The general media, furthermore, tend to turn to voices on the extreme right and, paradoxically, to Catholics with highly agonistic attitudes toward the Church for "authoritative" voices.
A few quick thoughts: First, Mark's observation about the "Catholic conversation" is probably right. That said, "Mirror of Justice" remains an exception (a small, quiet one, of course, but an exception nonetheless), and I think it is fair to say that we have worked hard to make it one. Next, I do not think it is true to say that the general media tends to turn to voices "on the extreme right." I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that Mark is referring to Weigel, Neuhaus, etc., and -- whatever one thinks of their views -- they cannot reasonably characterized as "extreme." (Of course, if Mark has others in mind, I'm happy to stand corrected). Finally, my own impression is quite different from Mark's, in that it seems to me that the "general media" (I'm thinking of "Meet the Press" and The New York Times) still, by and large, relies on its Rolodex of prominent liberal Catholics for commentary on "things Catholic."
Check out the new blog dotCommonweal, sponsored by my favorite mag, with the blogistas being editors and contributors to the mag. Here's a link to the welcoming post: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/
The Catholic legal professoriat is represented by Cathy Kaveny and yours truly. I'll be posting both here at MOJ and there; I look forward to lots of dialogues between the two blogs. Congrats and thanks to my friends at Commonweal for setting this up.
