Michael P. has thoughtfully brought to our attention the article published yesterday in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) penned by Kate (ne Braggs) Childs Graham entitled “Our Journey to Holy Union.” I know from past postings that Michael has stated that he does not necessarily agree with the works of others that he brings to our attention here at MOJ, so I am not suggesting here that he agrees or disagrees with the article he posted. I, too, have found it most interesting. It may well be that Michael also thought the brief essay by Ned O’Gorman appearing in the current issue of Commonweal would also be of interest. Although there are common themes between the two essays of Ms. Childs Graham and Mr. O’Gorman, I shall simply respond to the first one authored by Ms. Childs Graham. I find myself in substantial disagreement with many of the claims or implications asserted by Ms. Childs Graham regarding Catholicism and matters that pertain to law and society. I hope that my following thoughts offer MOJ readers some additional insights in the context of Catholic legal theory that qualify Ms. Childs Graham’s claims.
Ms. Childs Graham takes the opportunity to celebrate in publication fashion in the NCR her recent same-sex commitment ceremony with Ms. Ariana Childs Graham (?). In the title and text of her essay she confers the terms “holy” and “holiness” to the relationship with her partner. Toward the end of her essay, she finally refers to the relationship in the context of marriage and, in her estimation, states the “fact” that she is now “married.” These are fascinating by erroneous claims. She engages in some revisionism by asserting that her “marriage” was not legal “by terms of the state of California or the official (italics mine) Catholic church.” In spite of these impediments, she nevertheless considers that the “union is indeed holy” and, therefore, a “marriage.”
Here I would like to offer some thoughts. Her approach and attitude throughout her essay capture the profound flaw of the “mystery of life passage” of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that has animated the faulty understanding of liberty or freedom addressed in Lawrence v. Texas and the Goodridge decision of the Massachusetts court. Yet, in spite of her claims, Ms. Childs Graham confesses that there is a problem—both religiously and legally—with her “holy union.” The problem is two-fold. In the legal context, she and Ariana have become a law or legal system unto themselves by asserting that, in spite of what the law states, their declaration about the status of their relationship is what legally matters. In the religious context, she has established herself as a shadow or alternative Magisterium—something that she holds in common with some of her colleagues at the NCR.
But the positions upon which she bases her contentions about “marriage” that conflict with the law (of society and of the Church) do not stop here. She also claims that the passage of Proposition 8 (a topic previously receiving treatment here at MOJ by several of us) has disapprovingly removed “an array of human rights.” She does not define what she means by “human rights” and how they have been “tak[en] away.” I could provide what I think is an objective analysis of the applicable law to demonstrate respectfully why she is wrong in this contention. But I could also ask her: what precisely are the rights that she claims have been usurped and where are they codified? The ambiguity with which she presents her argument may satisfy those who are accustomed to hearing this kind of debate that she offers only in brief sound bites, but I think the American public as a whole is entitled to reasoned justification of her position if that is at all possible, which I argue it is not.
She then rebukes the American bishops who have “team[ed] up with the Knights of Columbus to make the ‘preservation of marriage’ one of its [sic] key focuses for the next five years.” First of all, I am not so sure that the American bishops, the Knights of Columbus, or anyone else who is participating in the debate on same-sex marriage has limited the debate to any specific period of time. Second, there is nothing wrong with like-minded citizens associating with other like-minded citizens to join in public discourse about important issues which the American people are or will be facing. This is democracy, not conspiracy. While she does not make the assertion outright, her juxtaposition of the “alliance” of the bishops and the Knights with the “taking away an array of human rights” should not go unnoticed.
There are a number of other points that she presents that merit discussion, but one that I find fascinating from a professional standpoint is her “version of a Pre-Cana marriage preparation program.” Having conducted or participated in many marriage preparations and, therefore marriages that I have witnessed as the Church’s minister, I am perplexed by her claims. First of all, I just wonder what kinds of questions her preparer, Diann L. Neu (a principal in the organization WATER [Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual] who is a same-sex partner of one of the other principals, Mary E. Hunt according to WATER’s website) would have raised about the complementarity of sexual differences or the having and rearing of their biological children? Ms. Childs Graham is on target when she states that her “Pre-Cana was quite different from the Pre-Cana courses that many heterosexual couples” participate in; however, I am at a loss to know how she can claim that “many heterosexual couples go through [their Pre-Cana] kicking and screaming.” Having participated in a large number of marriage preparations of heterosexual couples, I never witnessed any “kicking and screaming.” Ms. Childs Graham has not offered any information about the number of heterosexual marriage preparations that she has conducted. Nevertheless, contrary to her contention, I witnessed a strong willingness and often joy by the engaged couple because they realized that the preparation was not only required, but it was also important to them. But kicking and screaming I have not seen.
Many elements of the “marriage” ceremony that she describes require comment, but let me address this one. Ms. Childs Graham indicates that she and Ariana “were the priests of [their] wedding.” To this I add, no priest in the Catholic Church could be a “priest” of their “wedding.” Nor, could any priest of the Catholic Church offer the “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer that was inclusive of [their] faiths” which the Mss. Childs Graham “managed to create.” I would be interested to examine the text of this “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer” but it was not provided by the author of the article and co-author of the “prayer.” I will, on good faith, accept her assertion that their “ceremony… was truly us.”
The final point I shall raise here is her claim that “The institutional [is there a non-institutional] Catholic church and the state cannot take away our commitment to each other.” Frankly, that is not the issue. There are many commitments that people can and do make to one another that are not the business of either the Church or the state. But that is not really her real point which she quickly turns to by claiming that it is her “legal right to marriage and family” that has been called into question. But that is not the issue either, for Ms. Kate Braggs has the same right as any other person to marry and to have a family as anyone else on the same terms as anyone else. But, neither marriage nor family can be defined simply on her terms alone. So, her “legal right” to these institutions of marriage and family has not been called into question as she asserts. She takes personal affront on the “attack” to her and the lives of her friends who agree with her. To call into question and to disagree with her on the positions she holds regarding her “marriage” is not an “attack.” It is, however, the substance of public life, the exercise of citizenship, and the operation of democratic institutions to debate and, if necessary, to express reasoned disagreement. And this is something, Kate Braggs does not appear to understand.
I couldn't help thinking, when I read the America op-ed that Michael reproduced in his post, that perhaps it should have been called "The Art of the little that is now, given the elections of the candidates we at America supported, possible". (But, in keeping with my sunny disposition and certified-snark-free blog-persona, I suppressed that thought.)
Still, the way the op-ed put it -- i.e., "there are several strategies the new president could employ that would reduce the number of abortions" -- provides an irresistible occasion (sorry) for me to insist, yet again, that, as I see it, "the issue" with respect to abortion is not merely "reducing the number of abortions". It is repudiating our current, deeply unjust legal regime with respect to abortion. The America piece concludes with a quote from John Paul II, "It is not enough to remove unjust laws.... For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood.” Yes. But these initiatives (like any decline in the number of abortions they might bring about) will not render our unjust laws just (or excuse support for these laws). Certainly, the Pope was not suggesting otherwise. In politics -- and this side of Heaven -- it is always wise, it seems to me, to focus on what's possible. At the same time, when it comes to matters of basic justice, and fundamental human rights, I would think it a mistake to ever be complacent about, or resigned to, those forces, laws, theories, or candidates who unjustly shrink the zone of the possible.
I'm delighted to report that my former student, Julie Baworowsky, has won the Pew Religious Freedom Scholarship competition for her paper, "From Public Square to Market Square: Theoretical Foundations of First and Fourteenth Amendment Protection of Corporate Religious Speech." (Available here.) Among its virtues is the fact that the paper engages closely some of the work of our own Rob Vischer.
My student Steven Albright responds to the question:
The student who said that the responses come from not wanting to think about finals is very much correct. Today it was much more agreeable to me to think about dignity than to study for finals (or finish that final reflection paper on the course. whoops!)
As Fr. Araujo correctly points out, this dignity can be discovered through reason. The imago Dei reasoning might not be persuasive to all individuals but we can still get to the answer as a logical extension of the natural law. Through the natural law we can generally discover how to treat others correctly. The question of “to whom” naturally follows “how.”
I'm not sure that this question about who merits dignity is the result of a “modern philosophical shift” as another student put it.(although that shift has certainly exacerbated the problem) The concept of the “other” has been used throughout history as an easy method of rationalizing evil acts. The evil ceases to be wrong in the mind of the actor when we strip the dignity from the target of that evil. Looking back to the Bible, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) presents a similar situation. After asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, part of which is to love his neighbor as himself, the lawyer asks those familiar words “And who is my neighbor?” Understanding how he is required to act, the lawyer attempts to weasel out of that requirement. (“[b]ut because he wished to justify himself...”v29)
Regarding the more modern approaches to deciding who is deserving of dignity, I see them as simply more sophisticated versions of the same argument. These other flawed definitions, however, are extremely dangerous because they seem to be logical unless we stop and consider their implications.
As the student in the fourth response suggests with the discussion of nominalism, we are approaching the question from the wrong angle if we try to define who is deserving instead of presuming that everyone is worthy and from there make attempts to justify the potential exclusion of anyone. From that perspective it becomes much more difficult to deny that dignity to an individual.
As I mentioned earlier this week, the International Theological Commission (ITC) has been meeting in its final session and met earlier today with Pope Benedict. As you may recall, the ITC has been working on a document concerning a search for a universal ethics that brings a new examination into the moral natural law. The address of the Holy Father is here, however it is still only available in Italian (versione originale). As I previously mentioned, it will be some time before the final text is released by the ITC, and this was confirmed by the pope when he stated (my translation), “it must still be subject to the final review of the ITC according to its norms.” However, the Holy Father hastened to add that this work must be done expeditiously for there is necessity and urgency to make the ITC’s work accessible in order “to create in the civil culture and political society a consciousness that makes the value of the moral natural law indispensable.” He added that “the natural law constitutes the authentic guarantee to everyone for living in freedom and receiving respect in human dignity knowing that they are defended from any ideological manipulation and any abuse perpetrated by the law of might” (versus the law of right).
As I previously stated, I shall be on the lookout for the release of the ITC’s final text. But, in the meantime, I thought that MOJ contributors and readers would be interested in this development.
This article, in the current issue of America (Dec. 15, 2008), is very interesting. The author is John F. Kavanaugh, SJ, professor of philosophy at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Mo. To read the whole article, click here Here's an excerpt:
Abortion Absolutists
'The sad reality is that extremists on both sides are alienating citizens from one another.'
I
f there is any hope for change in national abortion politics, it will
rest on more honest and open discussion. The sad reality is that
extremists on both sides are alienating citizens (as well as people of
faith) from one another. The common ground that unites the majority of
Americans who want to limit abortions is eroded by people who insist on
an absolute position.
The extremist poles on abortion are these: 1) nothing short of
criminalizing the termination of any pregnancy from fertilization or
conception is acceptable; 2) nothing short of total reproductive choice
until birth is acceptable. These extremes have determined the debate in
the public square; and as long as this continues, we will never reach
consensus to protect unborn human life. They are also polar positions
that have never been closely examined by their proponents.
Absolutists for “choice” should answer the following questions. Is
there no constraint on “reproductive freedom”? Do you want a woman to
be free to choose only male births? Why or why not? Do you support
abortion in the second or third trimester for the sake of harvesting
organs? Would you support a woman’s right to sell her aborted fetuses?
Are you in favor of infanticide for newborns resulting from a botched
abortion? And speaking of neonates, what do you think are the
significant differences between a one-day-old baby and a 30-week fetus?
Are you willing to face the moral chaos of absolutizing the “right to
choose”?
Absolutists for “life” should answer questions too. Since you hold,
as I do, that a human being’s life begins at fertilization or
conception, do you think that Senator John McCain, Senator Orrin Hatch
and John Danforth are accomplices to homicide in their support of
embryonic stem cell research? Do you know why they hold their position?
Can you offer evidence that might change their minds? Do you wish to
criminalize those who sell or buy contraceptive pills that are likely
abortifacients? Do you think there might be people of good faith and
conscience who think a human life does not begin until implantation? If
there are, are you proposing that we impose our position on them?
The politicizing of extreme positions that have never been
seriously questioned has prevented any serious discussion of the facts.
Facts are the enemy of both poles. And facts are what we should look
at, if we are to address the topic of abortion in the public square.
.....
There is ...evidence ... to suggest that an individual human
being does not begin until the process of implantation in the uterus
begins. This is largely a cellular argument. In the judgment of some
scientists and scholars, the cells of an early-stage embryo seem not to
function as an integrated unitary individual. They are
undifferentiated, uncommitted to function as parts of an organism.
Moreover, twinning can take place (as well as recombination), which
suggests to some that it is not an integrated individual. Finally, the
phenomenon of early-stage loss of embryos (from 40 percent to 60
percent) leads many to believe that an individual has not yet come to
be. (All of these points, by the way, are countered by proponents of
fertilization who argue that differentiation of a kind starts at day
one, that twinning is genetically programmed and that the loss of
embryos is only an indication that individuation has not occurred.)
.....
[M[ost people open to the facts recognize that
a human life has begun by the end of the first trimester of a
pregnancy. It is at this point that some common ground may be reached
to protect unborn human life. There is political will at hand to ensure
such protection; but as long as the extreme positions hold sway, no
action will be taken. People know that a human life is being terminated
after the first trimester. What compounds the tragedy of abortion is
our helpless acceptance of the ugly reality.
Abortion reform will occur only if the extreme positions are
unmasked as intransigent, unwilling to suffer tough questions or accept
the basic facts of life. Those of us who hold that human life begins at
conception will continue to argue our case. We will celebrate adult
stem cell therapies as strongly as we resist embryonic stem cell
research. And we may convince many. But if we are unwilling to make
even the slightest move to protect some of the unborn because we cannot
protect all humans conceived, the shameful history of abortion in the
United States will go unchanged.
N
ext month will mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the flawed
U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned most laws restricting
abortion in America. The official anniversary will be Jan. 22, two days
after another historic milestone, the inauguration of Barack Obama as
the nation’s 44th president. These two events should provoke serious
national reflection on how to address the tragedy of abortion in this
country, which Pope John Paul II rightly characterized as an affront to
the dignity of the human person, undermining the very fabric of society.
While access to abortion is protected by judicial fiat, there are
several strategies the new president could employ that would reduce the
number of abortions. He could appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme
Court committed to the sanctity of human life and to a more reasonable
and moral view of the right to privacy than the one expressed in Roe.
He could keep in place the restraints on abortion imposed by executive
order during the George W. Bush administration. He could veto the Freedom of Choice Act,
in the event that it reaches his desk, and he could fight any effort to
repeal the Hyde Amendment, the federal law that bars the use of federal
funds to pay for abortions.
Mr. Obama should do all of these things. He is not likely, however,
to do any of them. That is political reality. Though pro-life activists
should not exempt the new president from moral suasion, nor abandon
efforts to end access to abortion by all legal and moral means, they
must realize that Mr. Obama is not at all likely to pursue policies
that several committed pro-life presidents like Reagan, George H. W.
Bush and George W. Bush were either unwilling or unable to adopt
themselves.
Instead of bemoaning this fact, pro-life activists should take
seriously Mr. Obama’s promise to find ways of reducing abortions short
of outlawing them. This approach may be both prudent and morally
justified. As the U.S. Catholic bishops have noted, “sometimes morally
flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing
legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and ‘the
art of the possible.’”
The prudent question that pro-life advocates should pose is, What
could we ask Mr. Obama and a Democratic Congress to do that they might
actually do? Given that the abortion rate, according to the pro-choice
Guttmacher Institute, among women living below the federal poverty
level is more than four times that of women living 300 percent or more
above the poverty level, pro-life activists could work with Congress
and the president to provide low-income women with health care,
childcare, housing, services for disabled children and other basic
supports young women especially need.
Pro-life activists could also insist on a review of federal and
state welfare policies to ensure that they do not indirectly encourage
abortions. This is especially important in light of the fact that there
may be a correlation between the existence of state caps on children
eligible for economic assistance and an increased incidence of
abortion. Ad-vocates could also work with the president and Congress to
increase federal funding for adoption services and comprehensive,
morally acceptable sexuality education and crisis pregnancy centers, as
well as support for programs to curb domestic violence and sexual
abuse. All of these efforts are required by a culture that values life.
As John Paul II noted, “It is not enough to remove unjust laws.... For
this reason there need to be set in place social and political
initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of
choice in matters of parenthood.”
The European human rights court yesterday uanimously rejected the complaint of two French Muslim girls who were expelled from school for refusing to remove their head scarves. Although I haven't read the opinion, Reuters reports that the court determined that "the school had done its best to balance the interests of the girls with respect for France's secular model, and their expulsion was a consequence of their refusal to respect rules of which they had been properly informed."
Jesus said to his disciples: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
At mass this evening, our pastor reminded us that faith and justice are intertwined. Unless we act with God's merciful justice, ...
