I've very much enjoyed not thinking about the election in recent weeks, but . . . with respect to the post by Eduardo, about Kmiec, et al.:
What many of us (and, more specifically, what I) found frustrating and objectionable about Kmiec's arguments in recent months is not merely that they were marshalled in support of Sen. Obama. I have always been clear that, for me, the issue is not whether or not a faithful, reasonable, informed Catholic could conclude that, all things considered, a vote for a pro-abortion-rights candidate is the way to go. ("Believe in infant baptism? Sure. Hell, I've seen it done.") First, as I contended (many -- too many? -- times), here and elsewhere, the problem with Kmiec's arguments was not their pro-Obama-all-things-considered conclusion, but their failure (in my view) to correspond with and take account of the relevant abortion-policy-related facts and history. Second, I do not believe Kmiec provided (and, because he is not a reluctant, "hold my nose" Republican but a longtime conservative public intellectual and partisan, I think it was incumbent on him to provide) an admission that he was changing his mind (on a number of issues) and an account of why he was changing his mind. (Remember Mitt Romney?)
This following thought-provoking piece originated in an e-mail by the author and has been posted on various internet sites. With the permission of Mr. Weiss, I reproduce it here:
Sodomy and civil rights, David R. Weiss, November 7, 2008
"This country has a sodomy problem. And until we have the wisdom and the courage to be honest about what that means we’re not going to resolve the question of civil rights for homosexuals. We need to be clear about why sodomy is such a threat to the common good of civil society, why it undermines the family, and why it is such an evil when afoot in faith communities. It’s not going to be easy. But it needs to be done.
The word “sodomy” comes from a biblical text (Genesis 19) where the ancient city of Sodom is marked out for divine destruction because its evil ways so angered God. Sodomy names those who act like the inhabitants of Sodom.
Fine. But listen carefully. Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships.
To vote on Proposition 8 in California, or on any of the other state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage, based on the Bible is the moral equivalent of using biblical texts to support slavery or apartheid. It is obscene.
So having cleared that up, let’s talk about the real problem here: sodomy. Acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
The prophet Isaiah (1:10-17; 3:9-15) knew something about the reputation of those who lived in Sodom. He says they despised justice, especially for widows and orphans—those at the edges of family structures in the ancient world. And he says they built an economy that stole the goods of the poor. Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) was also acquainted with the sodomy “lifestyle.” He rails against them because in the midst of their abundance they were indifferent to the needy.
Even Jesus, some 2000 years after its destruction, can employ a reference to Sodom with full effect. Twice (Matthew 11:19-24 and Luke 10:12) he invokes the memory of Sodom as a city condemned for its treatment of the marginalized and its lack of hospitality to sojourners.
For both the Hebrew prophets and the Christian Messiah sodomy is not about acting on same-sex attraction; it is clearly and unequivocally about social injustice and horrendous breeches of hospitality, of which the attempted gang rape of Lot’s guests is simply one final bit of damning evidence.
Sodomy, understood biblically, is the sin of creating social structures that systematically isolate those already at the margins of society. It is roundly condemned by the prophets and by Jesus. And for good reason. It destroys the fabric of families by teaching even the youngest children to dehumanize persons simply because of difference.
It undermines the common good of society by scape-goating a minority in ways that contradict the very ideals we claim to hold in a democracy. And it is simply an unforgiveable evil in faith communities where it betrays the very messages of justice, mercy, and compassion that are at the heart of religious faith.
So let’s be clear: the desire to close off the protections afforded by marriage to persons living in committed same-sex relationships (and to their children) is itself an act of sodomy and it has no place in civil society or in communities of faith.
Further, when African-Americans and Hispanics vote in large numbers alongside conservative white Christians to ban same-sex marriage they ally themselves with the same strand of Christianity that in the past quoted other biblical texts just as effectively to justify genocidal policies toward Native Americans, xenophobic laws toward immigrants, and abominations like slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid.
So, yes, this country has a sodomy problem. But so long as we think it has anything to do with gay sex we’ve missed the point of God’s outrage. Sodomy happens when any group uses their majority or their power to abuse and marginalize another group. That’s what happened in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas on November 4. And it’s time for us, as citizens and as Christians, to stop acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
David Weiss is a theologian, writer, poet and hymnist committed to doing “public theology” around issues of sexuality, justice, diversity, and peace. His first book is To the Tune of a Welcoming God: Lyrical reflections on sexuality, spirituality and the wideness of God's welcome (2008 / www.davidrweiss.com). He lives with his wife and children in St. Paul, MN."
The Sexual Person Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology
Todd A. Salzman, Michael G. Lawler
$29.95
ISBN: 9781589012080 (1589012089) LC: 2007046198 Book (Paperback) 6 x 9 352 pages May 2008
"Salzman
and Lawler are accomplished theologians with the stature to confront
questions that have become highly inflammatory in the too-often
polarized Catholic environment. The result is a piece of extensive,
well-researched, and carefully argued scholarship. The authors are
respectful, intelligent, honest, thorough, and courageous. They will
alarm a few people, enlighten many, and hold all to a new standard of
rigor in approaching this very personal and politicized subject."—Lisa Sowle Cahill, J. Donald Monan Professor of Theology, Boston College
"[A]
carefully reasoned, nuanced, well-informed, often inspiring, and
innovative book. Bound to be controversial for proposing an alternative
to the primarily procreationist, traditionalist sexual anthropology in
'official' or 'tradionalist' Catholic treatments, The Sexual Person
mounts a cogent and compelling account for a renewed genuinely Catholic
sexual ethic, one widely informed by the social sciences. [This book]
represents Catholic theological anthropology and ethics at their very
best."—John A. Coleman, SJ, Casassa Professor of Social Values, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles
"[T]he
most comprehensive, critical analysis of the Catholic debate on sexual
ethics over the past fifty years. Its interpersonal and experiential
approach points to a thorough revision of Church teaching on birth
control, reproductive technology, premarital sex, and homosexuality."—Edward C. Vacek, SJ, professor, Department of Moral Theology, Weston Jesuit School of Theology
"This
superb volume courageously explores Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
The authors' exploration of the biological, relational, and spiritual
dimensions of human sexuality engages Catholic teaching respectfully,
critically, and creatively. The book is a significant contribution to
both sexual ethics and moral theology generally."—Paul Lauritzen, director, Program in Applied Ethics, John Carroll University
"This
book is a much needed contribution to the contemporary Catholic
discussion of sexual ethics. The authors utilize the most recent
sociological and psychological data to supplement their careful parsing
of the Catholic theology of sex, gender, and embodiment. It is a work
that manages to be highly theoretical while at the same time addressing
everyday concerns about premarital sex, contraception, homosexuality,
divorce and reproductive technology.
Lawler and Salzman embrace the
model of theology as dialogue and as a result their treatment of both
traditionalist and revisionist views about human sexuality is
constructive and helpful. They succeed in moving a seemingly stalled
conversation forward."—Aline Kalbian, associate professor, Department of Religion, Florida State University
"A
bold and brave book! Tightly argued and well-documented, this book lays
out an understanding of human sexuality that expresses the profound
work that theologians do on behalf of the Church in order to find ever
better understandings of what the Church teaches in light of the
witness of Scripture, the tradition, and our understanding of human
experience."—Richard M. Gula,SS, The Franciscan School of Theology, Graduate Theological Union
Two
principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the
morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur
within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every
marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this
comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd
A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these
principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they
contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by
adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview
on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a
static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics.
While some documents from Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes
("the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each
other"), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church
has not carried out the full implications of this approach. In short,
say Salzman and Lawler: emphasize relationships, not acts, and
recognize Christianity's historically and culturally conditioned
understanding of human sexuality. The Sexual Person draws
historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of
Catholic tradition and provides a context for current theological
debates between traditionalists and revisionists regarding marriage,
cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it
means to be human. This daring and potentially revolutionary book will
be sure to provoke constructive dialogue among theologians, and between
theologians and the Magisterium.
Todd A. Salzman is a professor of Catholic theology and chair of the Department of Theology at Creighton University. He is the coeditor of Marriage in the Catholic Tradition: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience and author of What Are They Saying about Roman Catholic Ethical Method?
Michael G. Lawler is professor emeritus of Catholic theology at Creighton University. He is the author of What Is and What Ought to Be: The Dialectic of Experience, Theology, and Church and Marriage and the Catholic Church: Disputed Questions.
Today we concluded a very satisfying (from my perspective anyway) seminar on Catholic Perspectives on American Law. One of our readings was Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon's chapter, "International Law: Foundation of Human Rights - The Unfinished Business." One of my students was interested in our thoughts to the following:
"Glendon writes:
The shift from nature to dignity in modern thinking about the foundations of human rights thus entails a host of difficulties. The common secular understandings are that human beings have dignity because they are autonomous beings capable of making choices (Kant), or because of the sense of empathy that most human beings feel for other sentient creatures (Rouseau). But the former understanding has alarming implications for persons of diminished capacity, and the latter places all morality on the fragile basis of transient feeling. Most believers, for their part, would say that dignity is grounded in the fact that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, but that proposition is unintelligible to nonbelievers.
According to Glendon, then, Kant and Rouseau present incomplete explanations of the source of human dignity because some people lack the very characteristics that, by definition, qualify them for such. Believers, on the other hand, attribute human dignity to the Creator. Since all human beings are children of a loving God, all have dignity regardless of condition or circumstance. Glendon recognizes, however, that this conception of human dignity is not readily accessible to nonbelievers.
This discussion seems to necessarily require determining which of the choices is better: an arguably incomplete human anthropology (like Kant’s, for example, based on autonomous choice) or a correct conception of human dignity that is “unintelligible to nonbelievers.”
I’m interested to hear the thoughts of others."
BTW, the Catholic Perspectives on American Law book, linked above, would make a great Christmas present for the lawyer or law student in your life.
The gracious tone of Sen. John McCain’s
election-night concession speech was both impressive and reassuring,
especially his call for Americans to bridge abiding differences and
forge the “necessary compromises” the nation requires. Unfortunately,
that tone and sentiment were lacking in the response of many Catholic
bishops to Barack Obama’s victory.
Most striking were the public statements made
by apparently outraged bishops during the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops fall meeting in Baltimore, November 11. Cardinal
Francis George, president of the USCCB, released a brief official
statement the following day, reflecting the bishops’ concerns over the
supposedly imminent threat posed by President-elect Obama’s support for
the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The remarks of many bishops during
the televised portion of the meeting were intemperate and polarizing,
and their panic over FOCA is premature.
FOCA, which evidently aims to outlaw any
restriction of access to abortion—such as late-term bans or parental
con-sent for minors—is a piece of abortion-rights propaganda that was
introduced in Congress in its earliest form in 1989. The bill has never
gotten out of committee, even during the Clinton administration, and
appears to be more a fundraising device and a rallying cry for
prochoice groups than a serious piece of legislation. Its wording is
imprecise, and the bill’s attempt to establish a fundamental right to
abortion by statute is probably unconstitutional. Aside from one
statement Obama made to an abortion-rights group eighteen months ago,
support for FOCA did not play a significant part in his campaign. His
commitment to work to reduce the number of abortions played a much
larger part. Is it possible that this very divisive piece of
legislation will now leap to the top of the new president’s agenda?
True, Obama’s support for abortion rights is unambiguous, and politics
is an unpredictable business. But it seems unlikely that the new
president will seek to intensify the culture wars (a conflict he has
repeatedly promised to mitigate) by aggressively pursuing such radical
legislation. If he does, his effort to build a broad political
coalition that embraces prolife voters will end in bitter
disappointment and recrimination.
It is not surprising that the bishops
vigorously oppose FOCA. They should. What is disconcerting is how
opposition to the bill became the focus of their response to Obama’s
election. Evidently goaded by a worst-case reading of the bill’s
possible impact, and by tendentious speculation about Obama’s
intentions, many bishops demanded that a confrontational approach be
taken toward the new administration. “This body is totally opposed to
any compromise,” proclaimed one bishop. “We are dealing with an
absolute,” said another, “there is no room for compromise.” Others
called for a “war” against abortion, and urged the church to adopt an
unyielding “prophetic” voice.
Prophecy has its place, but if citizens bring
only absolute demands into the political arena, democratic deliberation
and consensus-building become impossible. As the political philosopher
Michael Walzer reminds us in his essay “Drawing the Line: Religion and
Politics,” decision-making in a pluralistic democracy “requires an
acceptance of the open, pragmatic, contingent, uncertain, inconclusive,
and tolerant character of all arguments, positions, and alliances on
the political side of the line.” Rejection of compromise, Walzer warns,
is a “kind of political escapism, where what is being escaped is the
day-in, day-out negotiation of difference.”
Changing the practice of abortion in this
country will first require changing the hearts and minds of millions of
its citizens. Important progress has been made in this regard, but it
is fragile and easily reversed when the prolife movement is perceived
as hostile to the political process itself or ideologically extreme, as
the defeat of yet another referendum outlawing abortion in South Dakota
showed in November. When the bishops speak and act in ways that seem
designed to preclude political compromise, they fall into this trap.
Some bishops may see themselves as harried prophets speaking to an
unhearing people. But the unborn need more than prophets. They need the
most persuasive political advocates possible, advocates who recognize
the necessity of bridging differences and striking compromises in order
to save lives. As Bishop Blase J. Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his
colleagues, “Keep in mind a prophecy of denunciation quickly wears
thin, and it seems to me what we need is a prophecy of solidarity, with
the community we serve and the nation that we live in.”
The bishops must find that voice again, and
put it to good use in the ongoing struggle against the violence of
abortion and the host of other ills plaguing this nation. Anything
less, as Walzer notes, is escapism.
Thanks to those whose votes have propelled MOJ to (so far) the top of the heap in the "professors" category of the ABA's "Best Law Blogs". Haven't voted yet? Get on over, then . . . here.
Here is a fascinating exchange (read also the comments) between Peter Singer (Princeton) and Michael Berube, whose child has Down's Syndrome. This comment, from "Father of Tommy", seems especially important:
Why should our expectations of others be a criterion for moral judgment as to their rights? Is it that our expectations are some kind of reliable indicator of what others are capable of? As your examples show, that is likely false, particularly in instances where theorizers are trying to come up with reasons for killing other human beings.
Why don’t we actually look at what they are capable of, rather than sit in our offices and seminar rooms talking about what we expect of them?
But then why should what they are actually capable of be a criterion for moral judgment as to their rights? Do we recognize disabilities? To recognize a disability tacitly recognizes that an individual of a certain kind is suffering. It is not a disability for a worm not to be able to see. But if one recognizes the suffering of another human being, why then not do what one can to alleviate the suffering, rather than destroy the sufferer?
I have a confession to make. I cannot seem to get over the election. No, not the one held in early November, but the one made public this past Sunday afternoon. Oklahoma jumped past Texas in the BCS poll (although there is a rumor of stolen percentage points) this past week despite Texas thumping Oklahoma 45-35 earlier in the season. The Big 12 title game this coming Saturday can appropriately be referred to as the Big 12 JV Championship or the Big 12 Consolation Championship since Texas beat the two contestants (Oklahoma and Missouri) by a combined total of 35 points.
To any voters in the Coach's poll or the Harris poll who happen to read our blog (I have it on good authority that there are many), I hope that you vote Texas ahead of OU next week unless OU beats Missouri by more than the 35 point margin of victory by which Texas vanquished OU and Missouri.
