Mirror of Justice

Thursday, October 8, 2009

New book by Cardinal George

Cardinal George has a new book "The Difference God Makes" He is interviewed about it in the National Catholic Reporter. A portion of the interview:

You wade back into a debate you set off in 1998, when you defined liberal Catholicism as an “exhausted project.” Among other things, you write that while liberals and conservatives often see themselves as opposites, both share an implied ecclesiology that comes from St. Robert Bellarmine, defining the church as a visible society. Can you explain that?

For both of them, bishops take on an importance that’s disproportionate. Liberals and conservatives both define themselves vis-à-vis authority.

Broadly speaking, liberals want you to have less of it, and conservatives want you to use it more.

Liberals are critical of [authority], although they’ll use it when they’re in power. Conservatives would tend to be less critical, but equally dependent upon it.

Consequently, when you get into the church, you get the conservatives unhappy because bishops aren’t using power the way they’re supposed to, the way they want them to. You get liberals who are unhappy because [the bishops] have any power at all. Both of them are defining themselves vis-à-vis the bishops rather than vis-à-vis Christ, who uses the bishops to govern the church. It’s not a Christ-centered church, as it’s supposed to be, it’s a bishop-centered church."

This sounds right to me and he has other interesting things to say.See http://ncronline.org/news/people/cardinal-georges-plan-evangelize-america

SSM and Religious Liberty

By Rob Vischer

The current Commonweal has my review essay on the recent book, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty (edited by Doug Laycock, Anthony Picarello, and Robin Wilson). It's a well-done book on an important issue. My review is accessible only to subscribers, but here's an excerpt:

Few same-sex-marriage advocates favor a diminishment of religious liberty for its own sake. The problem is rather that the institution of same-sex marriage will need to rely heavily on state power. As a legal institution, heterosexual marriage encounters relatively little resistance from the citizenry because it is grounded not just in legal norms, but in social, cultural, religious, and biological norms as well. Same-sex marriage still encounters significant resistance from the citizenry, in part because it conflicts with the traditional religious conception of marriage, but also because it lacks the broader social and cultural supports that heterosexual marriage has, even outside the religious context.

It is not enough for society to respond to those who object to same-sex marriage simply by saying, “If you oppose same-sex marriage, don’t enter into one.” After all, those who object to same-sex marriage make up many of the associations that constitute civil society. Once the state has expanded the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the pressing task will be to determine how aggressively to enforce that definition.

And from the conclusion:

The institutions of civil society are not simply vehicles for the implementation of widely held norms; they are also bulwarks against the imposition of widely held norms. This does not mean that institutional freedom should be unfettered. It does mean that using state power to subvert the moral authority of these institutions comes at a significant social cost, no matter how noble the purpose. Eventually, proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage will need to have a conversation about their shared interest in a society that ensures room for dissent from majoritarian norms. Consider this book the conversation-starter.

More from Gerry Bradley on Marriage, Procreation, Adoption

By Robert George

Notre Dame Law School's Gerry Bradley writes:

"Greg Popcak's post yesterday illimunes beautifully the harmony between adoption and the procreative understanding of marriage I described in my Public Discourse essay. All that I would add to Greg's intervention is this: I think that adoption is intelligible, and distinct from, say, foster care, only in light of marriage-as-procreative. Parents who adopt should (and usually do) understand themselves as taking into their family someone who is biologicially unrelated, but someone who at the same time they intend to integrate into their lives as they have (or would) issue of their marriage. They endeavor to treat their adopted son or daughter as indelibly part and parcel of the marriage, as unbreakably connected to them (the parents) and siblings (if there are any), and equally of the parents' marriage as any biological children are. And so adoption is not an "exception" to a sound normative understanding of marriage (as Rob Vischer wondered in his post yesterday), but fully in keeping with it.

"Rob also wonders (in the title of his post) "who is left out?". In the post itself he worries about whether my proposal sends "significant", even if "unintended" messages about "some realtionships counting more than others". In reply I would say, first, that it is scarecly the point of articulating and defending a moral norm to "send messages" of inclusion or exclusion, as if dividing up people was the goal of expressing moral requirements. In this way, any such message is indeed "unintended". But an inevitable effect of any account of excellence in the moral life (and in performances of every sort, be they intellectual, artistic, athletic, spiritual) is to send the message that some count more than others. This is true of my proposal for how to understand marriage, just as it is true for every proposal for how to understand marriage."

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Lew Daly on the faith-based initiative

By Rick Garnett

Lew Daly (author of God's Economy) has an interesting essay about the history and future of the faith-based initiative, and its connection with the Court's approach to church-state separation. Check it out.

The Democrats' new "Bob Casey problem"?

By Rick Garnett

Bill McGurn thinks so.

Someone ought to tell the president and the speaker of the House that they are creating a new Bob Casey problem for their party. And his name is Bart Stupak.

The Bob Casey in question is the late governor of Pennsylvania, so famously humiliated at the 1992 Democratic convention. Party officials who denied the podium to the pro-life Democrat somehow found speaking slots for several pro-choice Republicans. That moment helped tar the Democrats as a party of abortion intolerance—a problem the party thought it put behind it in 2006 when the governor's son, Democrat Robert Casey Jr., was elected senator as a pro-life Democrat.

Now party elders are making the Casey mistake all over again. A nine-term congressman from northern Michigan, Mr. Stupak is the kind of Catholic who once constituted the heart of the Democratic Party. Just like Gov. Casey before him, Mr. Stupak's stand for life—in this case, his fight against tax dollars for abortion—is making him a thorn in the side of a Democratic president. . . .

"What if Marriage is Bad for US?"

By Thomas Berg

Here's an article from the new Chronicle of Higher Education, by two Middlebury sociology professors, on "what if marriage is bad for us?" There are several striking things about it, including the lack of any reference to the welfare of children. And there's this quote:

With all that marriage supporters promise —wealth, health, stability, happiness, sustainability—our country finds itself confronted with a paradox: Those who would appear to gain the most from marriage are the same ones who prove most resistant to its charms. Study after study has found that it is the poor in the United States who are least likely to wed. The people who get married are the same ones who already benefit most from all our social institutions: the "haves." They benefit even more when they convince everyone that the benefits are evenly distributed.

Too often we are presented with the false choice between a lifelong, loving marriage and a lonely, unmarried life. But those are far from the only options. We should consider the way people actually live: serial monogamy, polyamory, even polygamy.

The authors don't explain how or why those three options are somehow less likely than marriage to discriminate against the "have nots" (even though the three, you'd think, are "institutions" too). Indeed, maybe the "have nots" do worse under those other options? Others can chime in with the evidence, but it strikes me that mothers who are economically vulnerable -- to say nothing of children -- have not been well served under the system of effective serial monogamy (with marriage or not) that's become partly legitimized in recent decades.

I spoke to quickly - Post 2 for today from the Camino

By Michael Scaperlanda

This morning I wrote: "a night´s rest has rejuvenated me and I am ready for a short 24K today." The early morning was glorious with the moon full or near full and the sun coming up as I left Santo Domingo de la Calzada (named for an 11th century saint who did much to improve the road to Santiago for pilgrims -many of the roads and bridges were built under his direction). With only 24 kilometers, I thought I´d take it slow, stopping in every village along the way. I was probably only 1K. out of town when my body (espeically my feet) told me I´d need to take it slow whether I wanted to or not.

We have passed through the wine region of La Rioja and arrived in Castilla y Leon, which we will walk through during much of the rest of the journey. As I walked this morning, the the sky started to look threatening, but I wasn´t worried, the sky had bluffed two days ago. But not today. For much of the day there was a strong headwind (I´d estimate sustained winds in excess of 25mph and as a runner in Oklahoma, I am pretty good at estimating winds) and then the skys opened up with a steady rain. I gave my poncho a try and within an hour or so, it was in tatters because of the wind, I guess.

In short, it wasn´t a fun or easy day. The sun did come out when I arrived at my destination Belorado where I am staying at the parish albergue suggested by my son Christopher and his wife Mary who stayed here two months ago. This year, the parish (Santa Maria) albergue is being staffed by Swiss friends of the Camino who take two week shifts in Spain.

I am full of gratitude but my body is tired. I have a rest day in Leon on Oct. 18 when my friends Bill and Mark join me for the last two weeks. But, that is a long way away. Please keep me in your prayers.

Finally, I sense I am being called to even more quiet on the Camino - at least for a time. And, this seems to be confirmed by the externals. I haven´t seen anyone from the group I walked with for the first day and a half since then. For the past week, I have walked alone but spent the evenings with a cast of around 10 - I´d see some on some days and others on other days depending where people stayed. Injury has kept some behind. Other are on other paces - some faster, some slower. Of this group, the only one in Bolarado tonight is staying at a different Albergue. So, it may be that my silence (except for blogging) continues on into the evening.

Reflections from the Camino

By Michael Scaperlanda

Francisco´s dinner party at the albergue was tremendous. We orginally set the table for 5 - me Francisco, a young woman from the Czech Republic, a Basque, and an Italian. He ended up feeding 9 and later others joined for after dinner wine. Our French host led us in a song before the Basque took over as our choirmaster. We sang the night away - well until 10pm and lights out. One of the guys I talked to at dinner is a doctor who is at a cross-roads in his practice. He has offers in three countries. He literally decided to make the Camino to clear his head (33 days of head clearing) when he met two pilgrims in an airport during a flight delay. He didn´t even bother to go home. He called and made arrangements for his practice, bought his gear, and headed out, following the two he had met.

Yesterday was a challenging day. Given my schedule, I needed to have one long day, and I had decided that I would attempt it on Tuesday. The walk yesterday was supposed to be 38K but ended up more like 40k. (More on the extra two later). I was a bit nervous because I had to commit to 38K after 23K because there was no place to stay between those two points. The day was marvelous. I felt great despite not getting much sleep the night before and drinking too much wine. The the rainbow (no rain) in the early morning sky seemed to promise a great day, and it was.

After lunch in Najara - sitting on a bench by the river - I got lazy and instead of following the yellow arrows (my authority), I followed three pilgrims up the WRONG mountain, adding about 2K to my already long day. I named the mountain, the Mount of Gratitude. At the 23K mark, I was still feeling good and went on. It was a very solitary expereince because everyone I had talked to was staying at the place I just passed. I walked for a long time not seeing another soul - just me and God. A long uphill climb about 6K from my destination about killed me, but at the top to my surprise was a water font and concrete reclining chairs. I took off my boots and rested a while. During the last 4K, I was really dragging, but then two my surprise, I saw a coyote and we walked together - at a distance - for probably 500 meters. He pepped me up for the final but. and, then to my pleasent surprise, the town I stayed in last night was down hill from me. What a relief.

Last night´s mass and pilgrim blessing were a joy although my feet ached. It says something when I´d rather kneel than stand or even sit. But, a night´s rest has rejuvenated me and I am ready for a short 24K today.

Yesterday, I offered the day for my parish, St. Mark, especially the RCIA program. Today will be offered for St. Gregory´s University in Shawnee, Ok and the Benedictine monks who run it. In addition, other prayer requests have come in through my wife or through facebook (I´m not checking work email) and I have plenty of time to pray for those requests.

Buen Camino en tu vida.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

A Nun’s Story (2009)

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Thanks, Michael P., for directing our attention to the lengthy essay authored by Sister X which appears in the October 9 issue of Commonweal. Since I have discussed a lot of what Sister X has to say in my last posting [HERE] in the context of communio and concilium, I won’t go into any of her contentions that Sr. Ilia Delio has raised and to which I have already responded.

At the outset of today’s posting, I acknowledge that Sister X, Sr. Delio, O.F.S., Sr. Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M, and Sr. Joan Chittister, O.S.B. have registered their concerns about the two apostolic visitations of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious [LCWR] (one by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the another investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). What is not in question is the good work that the religious orders (both women’s and men’s) have provided in the Church in the United States for several centuries. What is in question, though, is the quality of the response to religious life (hence the visitation by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life) and questions stemming from a 2001 meeting of officials from both the LCWR and the CDF regarding a variety of issues (including women’s ordination; the Declaration Dominus Jesu; human sexuality; and abortion).

Let me begin with a narrative: last September there was convened at Stonehill College a symposium entitled “Apostolic Religious Life since Vatican II...Reclaiming the Treasure: Bishops, Theologians, and Religious in Conversation.” I attended this important day-long event. During that time, I spoke with a good number of religious, both men and women, but more women than men. We were all from apostolic orders. I have an answer for Sister X who eloquently poses the question: “Is the Vatican visitation truly being done out of concern for American nuns?”

The answer is unequivocally: yes. And not only yes, but yes because it is American women religious who have asked for, petitioned for, and begged for this visitation. The women with whom I spoke saw no need to conceal their identity to me in raising their concerns about two important issues: the first, the quality of life in their respective communities; the second, the fidelity of some of their community to the Church and her teachings. They did, however, respect anonymity not from Rome, not from the Vatican, but from their own sisters who have decided, it seems unilaterally, to take the congregations into new and questionable directions. This symposium was an eye-opener. These were women who entered their congregations with zeal for the apostolates of teaching, of nursing, and of other works so vital to the Church. What they have seen and experienced is that their orders have undergone dangerous radical transformation—or, as some said, an abandonment—of their raison d’être and the charism of their founder or foundress.

After hearing their narratives, I, like Sr. X, also want to believe in the good will of the “institutional church” better known as the Church. But I would also like to believe in the good will of the women religious who have been making it increasingly difficult for these good women religious who publicly appeared at this symposium to live out their vocation to Christ and the Church. This is something that Sr. X does not address. Looking at many of the statements contained on the LCWR website of past annual conferences of this organization, I can see why these good and holy women whom I met at Stonehill are worried. They are not worried about Rome or the “Vatican.” They are worried about their own community members who have chartered a course that dramatically departs from the Church and her teachings.

Sr. X asserts that the visitations, especially from the CDF, constitute an “implicit accusation” that the leaders of the LCWR “are not Catholic.” Well, that concern comes not from Rome and the “institutional church.” It comes from members of the women’s congregations themselves—from members who have gone to receive advanced degrees, who have great love for the Church, who have labored valiantly in the vineyard of the Lord. Sr. X states further that the allegation that the LCWR leadership is “not Catholic” is “both insulting and absurd.” From what I gathered at the Stonehill conference, she should talk with some of her fellow congregation members who have a different take. When Sr. X claims that “since the 1980s the Vatican has not seemed interested in hearing what women religious themselves think about the quality of life in their own communities” it has. And her expressed disappointment should not be with “the Vatican” but with the women’s religious orders themselves who have neglected the concerns of their own members who have asked for the investigations.

I find it curious that Sr. X, and those sisters who have identified themselves publicly and criticized the visitation, have not focused on the fact that it is a fellow woman religious who is in charge of the visitation. It is not a bishop or cardinal. It is not a priest. It is not a man. It is one of their own who happens to be the superior general of her order, and, yes, she is an American.

I am confused by Sr. X attributing to Sr. Sandra Schneiders a dichotomy between “two theological visions of church and religious life.” Sr. X asserts that Schneiders poses two lenses of the renewal of religious life: one from the dogmatic constitution and one from the pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council. I was intrigued by Sr. X’s claim about Sr. Schneiders. But, I am sorry to say, one or both are mistaken. While it is true that Lumen Gentium does speak of the church “as institution,” it also speaks of the Church as “the people of God” and “as a pilgrim Church.” The pastoral constitution also speaks of the “people of God” but it does not address the pilgrim church as Sr. X attributes to Sr. Schneiders. It is, however, the dogamtic constitution that talks about a great length the “pilgrim church.” Moreover, the dogmatic constitution does not speak of the “fortress” or the “witness to a godless world” as Sr. X implies to Sr. Schneiders. So the implication that Sr. X makes that “Rome seems partial to the worldview of Lumen Gentium” simply is not supported by the texts upon which reliance is made. Frankly, from my humble experience, the Roman curia is vitally concerned about both simultaneously.

There are other problematic assertions made by Sr. X that are indefensible. But one other that I must comment on today is her suggestion that the priest shortage is not subject to an investigation. Well, maybe on its surface, that is true. But to think that the Vatican only investigates the LCWR is unwise. The seminaries, and therefore aspects of the priesthood and male religious life and the deficit of priestly vocations, were the subject of a recent investigation. Sr. X does not take account of this. And as I speak, the Legionnaires of Christ are also undergoing an investigation by Roman curial authorities. Sr. X fails to mention this as well. So any implication that only women are “targets of Vatican investigations” is simply not true.

As I said the other day in the context of a thread that Michael initiated regarding Sr. Theresa Kane, prayers are in order for the Church, the people of God, and the Body of Christ. I shall also pray for Sr. X, her gifts, and her zeal to serve the Church that she and I were called to assist as vowed religious. And so I conclude with another prayer: Maria, Speculum Justitiae, ora pro nobis.

RJA sj

Where does adoption fit when marriage is defined by procreation?