Allen’s first trend describes how over the course of the
20th century a “tight identification between the West and
Christianity” has “disintegrated” and Catholicism has been turned “upside-down.”
In terms of numbers, at the beginning of
the century, only 25% of the Catholic population lived outside of Europe and
North America; by century’s end, 65.5% of the Catholic population was found in
Africa, Asia and Latin America. (15)Allen quotes Rahner’s observation that as a theological matter,
Catholicism as a theological has always been a “World Church” in principle, but
“now that identity is being realized as a sociological fact.” (16)
After recounting some of the reasons for Catholic growth
in the global south, he then denotes some of its characteristics, including:
“morally conservative, politically liberal;” a comfort level with “miracles,
healing and the supernatural;” institutionally, grappling with problems of
growth—eg, infrastructure and staffing—rather than problems of decline; and
several positive examples of the Church playing a strong role in political
life. (23-32)
Throughout the book, Allen’s reflections on what a given
trend means for the future church are mapped out on a spectrum of near-certain,
probable, possible and “long-shot” consequences.Near -certain consequences of a World Church include
increasing attention to matters of pastoral concern in the South (such as
polygamy and witchcraft); and a gravitational pull away from internal “inside
baseball” questions (such as how power is distributed in the Church) toward “ad
extra” question of mission.
Allen also predicts that Southern influence will bring an
injection of “turbocharging orthodoxy” on sexual morality, with simultaneously
stronger support of “left” leaning policies on economic justice and war.(32-42) Attitudes toward ecumenical and
interreligious dialogue (discussed with more depth in later chapters) might see
a slightly tougher stance in light of Southern experience.As the head of a Nigerian league formed in
defense against anti-Christian violence by Islamic radicals put it: “You can’t
turn the other cheek is you’re dead.” (46).
What might this trend mean for Catholic legal theory and
Catholic legal education?In my own
teaching and scholarship, working with the genre of the encyclicals, I have often
struggled with the profound cultural differences between the European and
North-American mind-frames:eg, the
European tendency to articulate highly abstract principles, and only eventually
work its way down to a more concrete discussion, in tension with the more
pragmatic problem-solving leanings of North-American culture.I believe these perspectives have a profound impact
on how we understand the mesh between law and church teaching, and on how we
articulate how moral principles can inform their daily lives.Reading Allen’s analysis, I have the sense
that an “upside-down” World Church will present an even more interesting set of
dynamic tensions which will require a much more complex exploration of how
cultural attitudes toward law and social structures inform how we think about
the Church’s social teaching—based not just on how the US interfaces with
Europe, but on a richer, thicker interaction among the variety of legal
cultures in the global South.
In my seminar on CST & Economic Justice, when we have
tackled portions of the US Bishop’s letter, “Economic Justice for All,” I have
always gotten slightly stuck on the extent to which the CST principle and value
of participation is in tension with a robust sense of global solidarity.With Catholicism turned “upside-down,” and
with the hope of becoming more aware of and sensitive to perspectivesfrom the global South, I wonder how this
might challenge and change how I think about advocacy for the kind of wages,
healthcare and basic services which enablefull and dignified participation in our industrialized nation?
Finally, in light of Allen’s account of the challenges and
tensions which emerge with the South-North movement of priests (45), I wonder what
kind of institutional structures might help my students, and US Catholics
generally, open up to the beauties and possibilities of a World Church.In his introduction, Allen observes: “It
sometimes comes more naturally for Catholics elsewhere to connect what’s
happening in Congo, or Colombia, or Cambodia to their own fate.A largely benign form of national
parochialism is in some ways the original sin of much Catholic conversation in
the United States.” (12)Perhaps those grassroots
components of the Church that already thrive within the structures of
international staffing and exchange—religious orders, international service
programs, and many of the new ecclesial movements—could be of service.Reading Allen’s account, I realized that one
of the reasons I am not afraid of the changes that an “upside-down” Catholicism
presents is because I have before me the names and faces of women and men from
Brazil, Argentina, Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Mexico, Uruguay, and the
Dominican Republic, whose personal background, cultural heritage, and
experience of the Church in their own country, have greatly enriched the
Focolare communities where I have lived and worked.
I believe I have "opened" the comments section (and will get some technical help if I haven't!) - I look forward to further discussion of this chapter and the book generally.
Today we are opening our focused discussion of John
Allen's new book, "The Future Church."Ten of us have signed up to post the lead
blog on different chapter each week (for the most part in order, but note the switch on the last two), with an effort to include our thoughts on the implications of
the particular “trend” for Catholic legal theory and Catholic legal education. And with this discussion we'd also like to experiment with direct comments from readers, we'll see how that works. Here is our schedule:
Week of 1/18 - A World Church - Amy Uelmen & Rick
Garnett
Rob shared an (appropriately critical) post recently on Martha Fineman's new paper, Taking Children's Interests Seriously. As he (rightly) points out, the hostility toward private education and homeschooling, and Fineman's view that "public education should be mandatory and universal," rest on (to put it mildly) debatable factual premises (i.e., that public education clearly serves children's interests better than private education, religious education, or homeschooling) and on (to me) deeply troubling views about the state's authority over child-rearing, education, and formation.
Now, add to the mix this, "The Harms of Homeschooling," by Prof. Robin West. As Joe Carter reports, over at First Things, it is not a stretch to say that West's claim is that "poor, overbreeding, fundamentalist Christian families are destroying the tax base?" (Even worse, apparently, they are creating future Republican voters!)
It would be one thing -- a "same ol', same ol'" kind of thing -- if these kinds of diagnoses and prescriptions were appearing in teacher-union mailings, or the blog of the latest hipster-atheist practitioner of epater le-fundamentalists. But Profs. West and Fineman are accomplished, important scholars. Engagement, and vigilance, is warranted.
Christianity Today has this very helpful piece about the current round of church-property-dispute cases, and their importance to religious freedom. As the article describes, these cases often involve efforts by more conservative or orthodox communities to break away -- and take the property with them -- from national "mainline" Protestant churches. It's tricky: I tend to be sympathetic to the "breakaway" communities' understanding of the implications for morality of (broadly speaking) the Christian tradition, but find myself disagreeing with my friends (some of whom are mentioned or quoted in the piece) who believe that a local community's decision should control church-property destiny. To be sure, these cases are often complicated and fact specific. But, we should be careful of uncritically imagining that a very "protestant" way of thinking about churches, and church-authority, is in fact merely a "neutral" way of resolving such disputes.
This recent op-ed, by Ross Douthat -- about the Hume / Buddhism / Tiger Woods / redemption / Christianity fracas -- is worth reading. A bit:
. . . Many Christians have decided that the best way to compete in an era of political correctness is to play the victim card.
But these believers are colluding in their own marginalization. If you treat your faith like a hothouse flower, too vulnerable to survive in the crass world of public disputation, then you ensure that nobody will take it seriously. The idea that religion is too mysterious, too complicated or too personal to be debated on cable television just ensures that it never gets debated at all.
This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse. But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do.
Or maybe not. For many people — Woods perhaps included — the fact that Buddhism promotes an ethical life without recourse to Christian concepts like the Fall of Man, divine judgment and damnation is precisely what makes it so appealing. The knee-jerk outrage that greeted Hume’s remarks buried intelligent responses from Buddhists, who made arguments along these lines — explaining their faith, contrasting it with Christianity, and describing how a lost soul like Woods might use Buddhist concepts to climb from darkness into light.
When liberal democracy was forged, in the wake of Western Europe’s religious wars, this sort of peaceful theological debate is exactly what it promised to deliver. And the differences between religions are worth debating. Theology has consequences: It shapes lives, families, nations, cultures, wars; it can change people, save them from themselves, and sometimes warp or even destroy them.
If we tiptoe politely around this reality, then we betray every teacher, guru and philosopher — including Jesus of Nazareth and the Buddha both — who ever sought to resolve the most human of all problems: How then should we live?
It’s reasonable to doubt that a cable news analyst has the right answer to this question. But the debate that Brit Hume kicked off a week ago is still worth having. Indeed, it’s the most important one there is.
No, it's not the announcement of another season of "The Sopranos." The New York Times reports (with some regret, I imagine), that "To Lead Schools, Christie Picks Voucher Advocate," Bret Schundler. According to the report, Schunder is "[t]he man once described by teachers’ union leaders as 'the antithesis of everything we hold sacred about public education.'" So, he's got that going for him. The piece also notes:
Still, some of the ideas that made him a polarizing figure to unions and Democratic leaders have become more mainstream (RG: were these ideas ever not "mainstream"?), with even President Obama signaling interest in merit pay and promoting the expansion of charter schools. On Wednesday, the teachers’ union issued a statement that refrained from criticizing the choice.
As MOJ readers are probably aware, in a recent interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching. Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will."
As Archbishop Neiderauer points out, here, "[e]mbodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom":
Catholic teaching on free will recognizes that God has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17) As the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, makes so beautifully clear, God did not want humanity to be mere automatons, but to have the dignity of freedom, even recognizing that with that freedom comes the cost of many evil choices.
However, human freedom does not legitimate bad moral choices, nor does it justify a stance that all moral choices are good if they are free: “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1740) Christian belief in human freedom recognizes that we are called but not compelled by God to choose constantly the values of the Gospel—faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, integrity and compassion.
It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right. . . .
The "Notre Dame Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life" -- which I have referenced and discussed here on MOJ before -- has submitted some preliminary recommendations to the University's president, Fr. John Jenkins, which are designed to “broaden and deepen the pro-life culture in and among various constituencies in order to strengthen the Notre Dame community’s witness to Catholic teaching on life":
The preliminary recommendations include the following:
That the University formulate and adopt a policy statement indicating its support for Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
That the University formulate and adopt a policy statement on charitable gifts or investments in order to avoid formal or immediate material complicity in evils such as abortion and torture.
That the University adopt strategies to make its current supportive policies toward pregnant students better known to the student body, the faculty and other members of the Notre Dame community.
That the president continue to witness for life through attending or sending a delegate to participate in the March for Life or a similar event focusing on the right to life beginning at conception, as well as analogous forms of witness across the spectrum of life issues.
That undergraduate research opportunities be made available through “witness to life research opportunities” (or a similar idea), with topics in theology, law, philosophy, sociology, biology and other disciplines across the spectrum of life issues.
That the University find ways to encourage the work of students explicitly engaged in pro-life activities across the spectrum of life issues. Further, that the University create and support educative efforts on campus – such as conferences, consultations and courses – intended to inform the campus community on issues pertaining to life, and to form an academic culture of witness to life as appropriate to any given academic venue.
That the University encourage alumni in pro-life witness, for example, in helping them to mobilize their own parish communities in support of women in crisis pregnancies or in assisting adoptions.
The task force, for the remainder of its charge, will serve to initiate collaborations with specific Notre Dame constituencies as appropriate in order to further the implementation of the recommendations above and consider further recommendations.
Those who may wish to provide material relief to our sisters and brothers in Haiti can contribute to the Jesuit Refugee Service, USA. The JRS's website that facilitates donations is here.
In addition to financial aid, I am sure that the victims of the devastation and relief workers would also be grateful for our continuing prayers.
Many thanks to John Breen for his thoughts on Haiti and for the stirring quote from John Paul II -- I'd forgotten how beautifully 'spot on' this passage is. Thanks also to Patrick and Rob for their recent posts on Haiti.
These gents' posts remind me that I wanted to pass along another bit of information sent Robby and me Wednesday by a very acute, thoughtful friend -- the philosopher Patrick O'Donnell, whom some of you might know from the Ratio Juris blog in addition to quite a few other fora.
Patrick writes:
Here's a link to an organization in my hometown (well, they were downtown, but are now nearby in Goleta, where the rent is cheaper) with an exemplary track record (e.g., notice its 'efficiency' rating) in humanitarian aid relief (their offices are not far from where we live): Direct Relief International .
I might add here for my own part that the Salvation Army and Catholic Relief Services tend regularly to score very highly on the efficiency metric, with very low overhead and seemingly next to no waste. I'll pass along more on their efforts in Hait presently.
