What does it mean to be Catholic? And, why is being Catholic important to Catholic legal theory?

 

 

 

I sincerely thank the many authors who have contributed to our discussion over the past couple of days. I am personally indebted to Steve for his raising a number of important issues that help me identify and address the two questions that I have posed in the title of this posting. It may appear to some that I am taking on particular members of the MOJ contributors in writing this post, but that is not my objective or intention. I am, however, responding to the invitation to dialogue that Steve Shiffrin, in particular, has extended. I find that a number of his thoughts challenge me but also provoke a response in me after reflection on what he and others have presented.

 

I begin by considering the first question in this posting’s title: what does it mean to be Catholic? Surely there are some issues, e.g., capital punishment, on which Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium (and, as Steve sometimes says, “the institutional church”). Many months ago I addressed this issue which was an effort to build upon the thoughts of Avery Cardinal Dulles concerning the Church’s teachings on this issue. In my reflection, I explained why capital punishment was wrong by attaching a short unpublished essay I had written. I wonder if this makes me a “liberal” or a “progressive”? At the same time, I realized that other faithful Catholics could disagree with the position I had advanced. I wonder if that makes them “conservative”? For those who may not have read what I said, here is the link Download Araujo on Death Penalty  to my brief essay.

 

Steve has also asked if God is a liberal? I don’t think we can attribute human inclinations or perspectives to God. God is neither liberal, nor conservative, nor anything in between. God is God. I think that Steve and I are mostly in agreement on this based on what he says regarding any human effort to “unravel the mystery of God.” But can we know God? Steve seems to suggest otherwise, but I think we can through prayer and through the tradition of revelation that some have encountered and related to the rest of us as the Church teaches. I agree with Steve that Christians, if they are faithful to their discipleship, are called to assist in the divine plan. I suspect that he and I may differ on what that means on particular issues in which Catholics and other believers have been immersed over time. Indeed, Steve is on to something when he suggests that we “must ask what God expects of” us. We have to “discern to the best of [our] ability God’s vision of justice.”

 

But I do not conduct my discernment alone. If I were to pursue this path, I am confident that my view of Christian justice would be skewed by subjectivism. I know that I must turn not only to the prayerful experience of others, but I must take stock of what Steve calls the Magisterium or “institutional church” for I believe that Jesus Christ gave to Peter and the first apostles authority to define what Christian justice is and what it is not. So, I do and must turn to others—not just those with whom I am comfortable. But, in doing so I must also turn to those who have been commissioned by Jesus Christ and their successors. I am most grateful to Elizabeth Schiltz for her wise counsel concerning debate; however, since the Mirror of Justice exists to explore the meaning of Catholic legal theory, it will be necessary to do just that—debate—on occasion. To remain silent on these grave matters may be safe but it is not a luxury that can be easily afforded. So, as Steve suggests, there are risks not only in searching for “what we want to see in God” but also to engage one another in respectful and civil discourse.

 

As I pursue this course of engagement through discussion and, yes, debate, it appears that I will disagree with Steve, but not, as he says, on immigration, the environment, “and the like,” but on those very matters that divide deeplly members of the Church and of our nation, e.g., sexual morality, marriage, contraception, and abortion. If I am in doubt as to what the Church expects of me or anyone else regarding these high profile issues, I do not have far to look to find answers. Our Church’s teachings and the justifications for her teachings are within easy reach. They are accessible to me and anyone else who wishes to inquire. It is not simply what is inscribed on my heart and mind but also on the hearts and minds of others—including especially those who have been commissioned to teach in her name throughout the Church’s history.

 

As a priest, without modifier liberal/conservative or orthodox/heterodox, I, too must counsel those who seek my pastoral advice. Moreover, I must be satisfied that the advice and teaching I relate is sound. It cannot be what I think or feel is right. In providing this ministry, I must think with the Church, and explain, as best I can, what she teaches with mercy and tenderness, surely, but also with clarity. To be “truly diverse” is not the question about what is needed for God’s people. What is truly needed is objective and moral truth that is not mine or yours but God’s which can be known and conveyed with prayer, with discernment, and with union with the Church in thinking with rather than against her. I will not call someone else sexist, homophobic, or corrupt knowing that I, too, am a sinner who seeks fidelity for me and for others and God’s mercy and forgiveness. But I must not be paralyzed in failing to convey what the Church teaches and why it teaches when my responsibilities as priest, teacher, and disciple are exercised. This is the challenge of discipleship that is not open to some but to all in occasions appropriate to their calling as followers of Jesus Christ. However, if “progressives” conclude that they do not need the Roman Catholic Church to be Catholic and seek my response to what they have concluded, I will accept the summons and argue respectfully why the Church considers such conclusions erroneous. 

 

Steve and I agree that those who depart from these important moral teachings register dissent from what the Church (or, to be mindful of Steve’s perspective, “the institutional church”) asks from her members. So I come to his pertinent question why should these dissenters not be protestant or something else or nothing else? Steve suggests the question is a fair one, and the answer he offers is that belief in the sacraments, participation in theological discourse, and eschewing Protestant individualism preserve the dissenter’s Catholicism. But many Protestants celebrate some or all the sacraments; many Protestants engage in theological discourse; and some Protestants proclaim the common good over exaggerated individualism. That is why Steve resorts to other traits of what it means to be Catholic: an emphasis on grace rather than on evil (a trait of Protestantism according to Steve). Surely the Church teaches abundantly the nature and presence of grace in our lives—Deo gratias! But I think she also reminds us constantly of the presence of evil and of sin. Pius XI in Non Abbiamo Bisogno and Mit Brennender Sorge and John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, and Centesimus Annus (to mention just a few elements of the Magisterium) address at length the presence of evil in the world of modern and contemporary times. And St. Paul in his letter to the Romans reminds us that Christ’s disciples are exhorted not to be overcome by evil but are commissioned to overcome evil with good.

 

These are some considerations that I present in response to Steve’s kind invitation regarding what it means to be Catholic. And it is this understanding of being Catholic—thinking with, not against, the Church—that is important to development of Catholic legal theory. Otherwise, one who is attracted to and relies upon the dissenting view may have some wonderful things to say about legal theory, but are they really Catholic? If one’s thinking is rooted other than in the Church, I do not see how it is possible to argue that one’s legal theory is in the Church when that theory is in conflict rather than in communion with her teachings. Fidelity to her teaching does not sacrifice discussion, debate, intellectual stimulation, richness, civility, or humility.  

 

Last of all on another matter raised by Steve, I found what Kerry Kennedy has to say about “Being Catholic Now” moving, but I do not think I was moved the same way that Steve suggests. Thus, I wonder if I am in the circle of “rare human beings” to which Steve refers or not. Well, I’ll reserve that for another discussion another time.

 

RJA sj