Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Here is a short piece by moral theologian Mark Latkovic on mental reservation. Here. This is an issue that deserves more attention. The practice of mental reservation is widespread and probably explains why one encounters the manipulative use of language so often. People rely on the idea of mental reservation to mislead, while still thinking of themselves as truth-tellers. As Latkovic explains, it is important that we honor the good of truth.
Richard M.
Here's Judge John Noonan, writing a few months ago in the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church case:
An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So are unregulated unregistered churches. Churches have played an important — no, an essential — part in the democratic life of the United States. . . . In a secular age, Freedom of Speech is more talismanic than Freedom of Religion. But the latter is the first freedom in our Bill of Rights.
From Ivan Maisel's Three Point Stance:
It’s important that Notre Dame remain relevant in college football, not only for history and tradition, but because Notre Dame still believes that high academic standards and winning can co-exist. Asked Monday if it’s tough to focus on school while thinking about who the next coach might be, Irish defensive end Kapron Lewis-Moore said, “Actually with me the hardest thing is thinking about if I want to write about Aristotle in my philosophy paper.” Beautiful.
[MOJ friend Gerry Whyte--a member of the law faculty, and former dean of the law faculty, at Trinity College Dublin--sent me the following message this morning:]
I would like, from the perspective of an Irish Catholic, to respond to Patrick Brennan's recent posting on MOJ about the Apostolic Visitation to women religious in the US. To put my comments in context, I should point out that, prior to the discovery, beginning in the mid 1990s, of the abuse of children by Irish clergy and religious and the subsequent cover up by our church authorities, I was very proud of what I considered to be the heritage of Irish Catholicism, both here in Ireland and abroad. In particular, I was very happy to serve as a member of the episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace for a number of years during the 1980s, inspired as I am by the Catholic vision of social justice.
Turning to the scandal of child abuse in the Church in Ireland, it seems to me that some of the underlying factors may be, if not unique to Ireland, of more relevance here than elsewhere. This would include a repressed sexuality (arguably the product of the Jansenist strain within Irish Catholicism combined with the pressures of living in a poor, agrarian society), a repressed anger (possibly the legacy of colonisation?) and a hierarchical and judgmental society that placed great store on social status and, conversely, thought little of those who lacked that status.
However in my opinion, a further factor contributed to this sorry situation, a factor of which Catholics outside Ireland should take note, and that is the fact that the clergy and religious in Ireland had great power, in respect of the exercise of which they were completely unaccountable. Many people are familiar with Lord Acton's aphorism that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Fewer know that Acton, an English Catholic, coined that phrase in the context of the nineteenth century debate on papal infallibility. I mention this not to implicate papal infallibility in the current scandal - the rights and wrongs of papal infallibility are, to quote your President, 'above my pay grade' - but rather to illustrate the fact that Acton, in the nineteenth century, recognised that the Church could be corrupted by the exercise of absolute power. In my opinion, the recent revelations of abuse and cover up by the Catholic Church in Ireland reinforces that point. Reflecting on the Ryan and Murphy reports, one has to conclude, reluctantly on my part, that the wrongdoing here was not simply the actions of a few bad apples but, rather, was systemic. The exercise of untrammelled power corrupted the institution of the Church. So, returning to Patrick Brennan's point about the three forms of leadership within the Church - institutional, charismatic and intellectual - in my opinion, the Irish experience shows that there is something very wrong with the structures of leadership within the Church and that they have a corrosive and corrupting effect on people who are otherwise good and decent. Quite what we need to do now, I am not sure, but it cannot simply be a case of 'business as usual'.
One final (and unrelated) point arising from last week's Murphy report relates to the concept of 'mental reservation'. This was a concept of which I was unaware (though I know I am not alone in this) prior to the publication of the Murphy report and I wonder whether MOJ readers are better informed? The concept justifies what might politely be called 'disingenuousness' and was relied upon by one prominent cleric here to defend his statement that Church funds ARE not used to compensate victims of clerical sex abuse when he knew, and chose not to disclose, that such funds WERE so used in the past.
MOJ readers are probably familiar with Aidan O'Neill and his work. He was kind enough to send me, a few days ago, some thoughts of his regarding the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Lautsi v. Italy. In that case, the Court ruled that the Italian requirement that crucifixes be hung on the walls of classrooms (quoting O'Neill)"violated the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions, and the right of their children to believe or not to believe." He writes:
In making these broad claims in the context of this ruling, the European Court would appear to be committing itself to the claim that that not only is a strict reparation of Church and State permitted under the European Convention but it is actually required by it. Such a claim can certainly not be justified by the plain text of the Convention. It appears to owe more to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence on the separation of Church and State. But this case law is based on the text of American Constitution’s First Amendment’s requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. This clause has resulted in a seemingly endless line of court cases on such issues as: whether nativity scenes, or the text of the Ten Commandments, can lawfully be displayed on State owned property; or whether prayers can be said, or oaths of allegiance recited, in public schools. . To apply such an American separationist analysis within a European context simply does not do justice to the wholly different understandings of the proper relationship between religion and the State which have historically existed among the countries of Europe; where, indeed, religious establishment has been the norm.
Thoughts?
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
