The conversation addressing the role of progressive/dissenting/heterodox Catholics on MOJ has been thoughtful and thought provoking, inviting me to think more deeply about the Catholic Legal Theory project as I conceive it and MOJ’s part in that project. First a word about labels. Steve has clearly defined what he means by “progressive,” “dissenting” Catholics. By my count there are three MOJ authors who have publicly identified themselves (whether they would apply Steve’s label’s I don’t know) as fitting within this category. There could be more, but I don’t know. For all the risks of labeling and categorizing, and for all the complexity that Lisa raises, I think Steve’s categorization and labeling perform an important service for our project because it helps us identify some of the tensions within this project itself.
In addition to informational posts, our posts tend to fall into at least two other categories: 1) working to evangelize the culture by thinking with the Church about the role of the state; the relationship between state, person, and other institutions; the role of law in a given society, and application of Church teaching to specific areas of law, culture, and public life; and 2) calling for reform, change, or development of doctrine within the Church. And, this latter type of post is not limited to challenging the Church’s moral teachings but also includes challenges to it theological doctrine as evidenced by disagreement with the Magisterium over the ordination of women.
What is the mission of MOJ? Are these two separate and inconsistent projects? Should there be two blogs – one dedicated to thinking with the Church and the other arguing with it? Or, can the two projects be harmonized in one blog? If so, how?
In our co-edited book, Recovering Self-Evident Truths: Catholic Perspectives on American Law, Teresa Collett and I consciously took the first approach. By way of full disclosure, our Introduction says: “all essayists have attempted to incorporate authoritative and authentic teachings of the Church in their reflections; therefore, readers who wish to see the reflections on American law by those who ‘dissent’ from Church teaching will have to look elsewhere.” (p. 12). In his afterword to the book, Russell Shaw argues that “[u]nless believing, practicing Catholics re-create a viable subculture as the basis for their efforts to engage and, let us hope, reform the secular culture, there is little or no chance that a change for the better will occur.” Amy’s post from a reader and Stephen Braunlich’s response both seem to cry out for the creation of this subculture. And, to a large extent, I think MOJ contributes to the creation of a Catholic subculture desirous of building a culture of life in the larger culture.
One aspect of being Catholic is also being catholic. The Church, like the larger culture is fragmented. A great many American Catholics fall implicitly or explicitly into the category of progressive/dissenter/heterodox. They raise good and sometimes troubling questions that should be addressed and grappled with by those, like me, who are graced (and I do look at this as a grace) with a much less troubled relationship with the institutional Church and its teachings. If those of us who do not categorize ourselves as progressives/dissenters/heterodox are going to be effective in evangelizing the larger culture, we must be in dialogue with our brothers and sisters who, although Catholics, find themselves dissenting from the Church’s teaching. This can be maddening and frustrating at times, but I am convinced that we can’t shut out or ignore these voices.
In short, I think these two projects – thinking with the Church and presenting voices of dissent – can be harmonized on this blog. We ought to consciously recognize that pursuing these two projects side by side creates certain tensions and requires a delicate balance. To strike that balance, I’d vote “no” to Steve’s proposal to add progressives/dissenters/heterodox authors to MOJ. As I conceive it, this project is primarily concerned with the development of Catholic Legal Theory, which means, to my mind, thinking with and applying the teachings of the Church in our legal and academic work. To do this in a robust way, we need to hear and dialogue with persons voicing dissent from those teachings. But, at some point adding more dissenting voices would, I think, detract from and undermine what I identify as the primary goal of the blog.
Consciously recognizing that we are intentionally retaining a permanent minority voice on the blog creates other challenges, but in the end might actually resolve some of the tensions that have arisen on the blog. From my perspective, Steve, Eduardo, and Michael P. play a different albeit important role than the rest of us in our common quest to think as lawyers and academics about law from a Catholic perspective. If I am correct about this (and am not being too presumptuous), I think we should openly acknowledge this fact. Seeing and acknowledging their unique role in our project, helps me to appreciate, cherish, and respect their contribution to the blog.
