Greg Sisk wraps up a great week guest-blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, discussing his work on how religious-freedom claimants fare in the courts. Nice work, Greg.
Saturday, March 4, 2006
Sisk at the Conspiracy
Friday, March 3, 2006
Beatitude
I am in Alta, Utah right now, where the skiing is better than it is anyplace else on the planet. If the goal of "Catholic" anything -- legal theory, etc. -- is, ultimately, to "be happy with Him in the next," I think that -- at 10,500 feet in the Utah sunshine, I'm pretty close. Not that I deserve it, of course.
More on "Fundamentalism" Conference
Marci Hamilton writes concerning my earlier post:
Your pre-assessment of Cardozo's conference on fundamentalism and the rule of law is, well, odd, I guess. You don't bother to mention Esposito's keynote. Are you aware of his work on these issues? Or Khan's? Mark Rozell's? Prof. Dan Crane, who is an evangelical, is moderating one of the panels, so, just maybe, the debate is going to be scholarly and thoughtful, which, of course, is what Cardozo is known for. I guess my question is where are you coming from? I wasn't aware that the boundary line between fundamentalism and the rule of law already had been so politicized that such a conference would generate such a comment. In my view, the discussion has not even started yet, though it is absolutely crucial for the future.
I've spoken (at Marci's invitation) at two Cardozo Law conferences, both of which were indeed scholarly and thoughtful and balanced, so perhaps it's a little churlish of me to criticize an event there. I certainly agree that this a vitally important topic, and I already noted that the presenters for the upcoming conference are all excellent and thoughtful scholars. But excellent and thoughtful scholars still have points of view, and so a conference is still better if it reflects a balance of competing views among thoughtful people on issues as to which there is room for reasonable disagreement. I don't think that Marci challenges my conclusion that those on the program (speakers and commentators) who have a strong normative position about the role of the Christian right in politics appear to be almost all negative -- for example, on issues like inclusion of religious social services in funding programs, which is certainly an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. This is not a matter of "politics," but of the academic benefits that come from contending points of view. That's where I'm coming from (and I personally would defend the Christian right's legal position on some issues and not on others). I also noted that there were some social-science analysts on the program (like Prof. Mark Rozell, whom Marci mentions) whose work is more descriptive then normative. But I see no one on the program who strongly defends things like the faith-based initiative on a normative basis. While Prof. Crane is an evangelical (and I don't know his views on these issues), a moderator is necessarily much more circumscribed in presenting his/her normative positions. As for the references to Professors Esposito and Khan, who are speaking on Islam, I didn't claim anything about the subject of Islam, on which I'm relatively uneducated. My concerns had to do with the range of views toward the legal activism of evangelicals, on which I know a lot more.
The real point is not about any particular conference, but about discussions of these matters in general. When the normatve views on the activism of evangelicals are significantly weighted to the negative in a discussion of "fundamentalism" -- a word that, especially after 9/11, has extremely negative connotations to many (including to me) -- I think there is reason for concern that some important distinctions and countering points of view will be missed. One such issue I mentioned before (but not the only one) is the distinction in Christianity between evangelicals, who drive several of the initiatives that speakers will criticize, and fundamentalists. When the contributors are high-quality, as they are here, then the defenses of evangelical activism may still be brought up and seriously considered. It's just more likely to happen if the discussion includes a strong defender of evangelical activism along with the strong critics.
Tom
Brides and Bridegrooms
Thanks to Rob for posting Levada's comments. This "bridegroom" argument is also one that is often deployed against the ordination of women. I personally find it perplexing. Levada says:
“I think we must ask, ‘Does such a priest recognize how this act places an obstacle to his ability to represent Christ the bridegroom to his bride, the people of God? Does he not see how his declaration places him at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?’” Levada added that this provides “a good example of the wisdom of the new Vatican instruction.”
This suggests that he views the bridegroom language in a very literal (and somewhat sexualized) way. But that makes little sense, whether the priest is gay, straight, male or female. Certainly the people of God, the "bride of Christ," is not (and simply cannot be) explicitly and essentially female (and heterosexual) in the way that Levada thinks the priest must be male and heterosexual in order to properly display the "spousal character of love." After all, the people of God includes both men and women, gay and straight. Indeed, it essentially includes these people. I suppose the answer would be that the femininity of the Church is metaphorical in a very loose sense and totally unrelated to the actual identity (and sexual identity) of its individual members. And if the metaphor is truly metaphorical on the side of the bride, does it need to be so literal on the side of the bridegroom? How would a straight priest properly relate to the diverse community of the Church in a "spousal character" except in a way that is highly abtract and metaphorical, divorced from straightforwardly physicalist sexual analogies?
Levada on Gay Priests
Richard John Neuhaus reports on a recent homily given by Cardinal-designate William Levada explaining the wisdom of the recent instruction on homosexual priests:
In addition to the question of psychosexual maturity, Levada said, “the question also needs to be viewed from its theological perspective,” particularly in light of “the biblical image of God’s spousal relationship with his people and Gospel passages in which Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom.” He took note of “the situation of the gay priest who announces his homosexuality publicly, a few examples of which we have recently heard reported.”
“I think we must ask, ‘Does such a priest recognize how this act places an obstacle to his ability to represent Christ the bridegroom to his bride, the people of God? Does he not see how his declaration places him at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?’” Levada added that this provides “a good example of the wisdom of the new Vatican instruction.”
Rob
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Cardinal's Call for Civil Disobedience
It's not often that the Catholic Church is praised as "courageous" in a New York Times editorial, especially when the praise is a result of the Church staking out a position in defiance of the prevailing legal culture.
Rob
Robby George's Invitation
Robby writes, in his post below:
"Let's together give a ringing
affirmation of the Church's teachings on torture, capital punishment,
abortion, and marriage and sexual morality."
The Church's official teaching on "sexual morality" holds, inter alia, that it is immoral for anyone *either* to engage in any species of sex act that of its nature ("inherently") cannot be procreative (e.g., oral sex) *or* to engage in any deliberately contracepted sex act with the intention of preventing the act from being procreative.
This teaching lacks credibility for most Catholics in the United States--and, I think, with good reason: I concur in the judgment of many Catholic theologians that this teaching is seriously mistaken. (The theological literature on this is enormous.)
Now, I know Robby disagrees with me about this, but that Robby disagrees doesn't begin to explain why he would issue an invitation that includes the Church's teaching on "sexual morality". After all, Robby *knows* that very many of us cannot in conscience affirm that teaching. So I am struggling to discern what Robby is trying to accomplish in issuing the invitation he did. Robby?
Michael Perry
George's Invitation
I'm all for taking on sacred cows, but I don't understand the inability of many conservatives to simply acknowledge the evil of this administration's policies with respect to torture without bringing up abortion.
Prof. George would surely admit that the multiplication of issues he proposes would needlessly dilute the force of the truth he welcomes speaking to this administration about the evils of its torture policies. So I have a somewhat different invitation, which I offer as a friendly ammendment: Why don't we sign a joint statement (now) condemning in the strongest possible terms the torture practiced by this administration (which was, after all, the topic of Michael's post), and when Democrats control ANY branch of the government or have any appreciable influence on national abortion policy, we can sign a joint statement about abortion?
Robert George's response, and invitation
Professor Robert George asked me to post the following, as a contribution to the conversation we have been having about whether Catholics who are critical of the Democrats' position on abortion have been appropriately and publicly clear about the immorality of abuse of detainees:
I have followed with interest the discussion launched by Michael Perry. Although my importance and influence have been exaggerated, I was certainly flattered to be singled out, first by Michael then by Eduardo Penalver. I gather that some liberals think that Catholic conservatives are shying away from speaking truth to power when it comes to the Church's teachings on torture and the death penalty. Some conservatives think that liberals are reluctant to jeopardize their standing with academic colleagues by defending what the Church teaches us is true about abortion and marriage and sexual morality. Let's work together. I propose that we issue a joint statement that makes clear that liberal and conservative Catholics, despite our political differences, are willing to stand up publicly to defend the "seamless garment" of the Church's moral teachings, however unpopular doing so might make us with people in our respective "political circles" (if I may borrow Professor Penalver's phrase). Let's together give a ringing affirmation of the Church's teachings on torture, capital punishment, abortion, and marriage and sexual morality. Let's call both the Republican and Democratic parties to account. If those of us on the conservative side end up taking some heat for standing up on torture and capital punishment, I'm happy to take it. I trust that those on the liberal side feel the same when it comes to taking heat for standing up on abortion and marriage and sexual morality. I'll sign. Who will join me?
More on the Statement of Principles
The Fifty-five members of the House of Representatives in the February 28, 2006 Statement of Principles begin on a high note asserting their pride in “living the Catholic tradition” in order to promote the common good and to “work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being.” They also endorse the basic principles that “are at the heart of Catholic social teaching” and assert their commitment to make them “real.”
But then, one might ask how do they understand the teachings of the Church on all important issues of the day that come before them as legislators and as Catholics who are disciples in this world? While there is some reference to other issues, the one substantive issue that they address is abortion. How well do they understand what the Church teaches on this issue is crucial to assessing this Statement of Principles? How well they understand the “people of God” to whom they refer and the exercise of conscience on which they rely and John Paul II’s Christifideles Laici which they use for support require careful study.
Thirteen women and forty-two men signed the Statement of Principles. How does one of the principal advocates for abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice, rate these members of Congress? All of the women received a 100% (the best) rating from NARAL Pro-Choice. Fifty-seven percent of the men also received the “best” rating. However, five of the men received the “worst” rating or 0%. The range for the remainder of the men varied between the two ends of the scale.
Now, let us move on to more substantive matters and the questions I posed. No reference is made to John Paul II’s exhortation to public policy makers concerning the question of abortion. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae he addresses the role of the legislator. In doing so he reminds them in N. 73, “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent… [W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” In N. 38 of Christifideles Laici (to which the Members of Congress refer) the Pope states: “The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor…If, indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power.”
These Members of Congress also fail to address the significance of Lumen Gentium when talking about their membership in the “people of God.” It is vital for us all to understand the proper role of each person and the incumbent duties one holds in the Church. We all need to understand clearly who holds the authority to teach and instruct. In Lumen Gentium, NN. 20, 21, 24, 25, the Council explained the duties of bishops as teachers of doctrine, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, endowed with the authority of Christ and rulers who ward off errors that threaten their flocks. As the Second Vatican Council further stated: “The distinction which the Lord has made between the sacred ministers and the rest of the People of God involves union, for the pastors and the other faithful are joined together by a close relationship: the pastors of the Church—following the example of the Lord—should minister to each other and to the rest of the faithful; the latter should eagerly collaborate with the pastors and teachers.” These Members of Congress and the rest of us must be reminded that there are those who have the authority to teach (and not only on one issue). Reiterating instruction on the pressing moral and social issues of the day is the proper role of a teacher, and exercising this responsibility is not mounting scorn on those who are the pupils of this teaching. It is the exercise of a solemn obligation and fundamental moral duty of the bishops to inform the consciences of those entrusted to their pastoral and teaching duties (Lumen Gentium, NN. 21, 27). The claim which these Members of Congress assert is based on this relationship with the Church’s teachers; it is not separate from it.
A word about the exercise of conscience is due here. As John Paul II once said, “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Evangelium Vitae, N. 70. The properly formed conscience is geared to the moral objective order that protects the inherent dignity of all. Notwithstanding the claims made by these Members of Congress, one must ask and address the question about the role of the Catholic legislator regarding the matter of abortion and how the Catholic legislator has been asked to tackle it—in the exercise of good conscience well formed and reflecting the objective moral order. It would seem that the voting records of many of these legislators who signed the Statement of Principles do not reflect the proper exercise of conscience as the Church teaches about it. If this is the case, the principal teachers, i.e., bishops and pastors, have a lot to do to ensure that the members of their flock who sit in the Congress are well informed about their duties and the exercise of conscience so that their words and deeds will be in accord with Catholic teachings—teachings on which these legislators claim they rely. In the meantime, the rest of us also have our own duties as disciples, and one of them is to pray for our sisters and brothers who are elected to Congress and the teachers whom God has appointed to guide them. RJA sj
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
