"Some Catholics concede that the church admits the principle of doctrinal development, but they accuse [John} Noonan, in Richard John Neuhaus's words, of too often equating development with 'a change, or even a reversal, of doctrine.' At a recent meeting of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, Noonan and theologian Avery Dulles had a polite but sharp exchange on the subject, with Noonan again insisting that 'the record is replete with mistakes--the faithful can't just accept everything that comes from Rome as though God had authorized it.'" --John T. McGreevy, "A Case of Doctrinal Development: John T. Noonan -- Jurist, Historian, Author, Sage," Commonweal, Nov. 12, 2000. See John T. Noonan Jr., A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2005). See also Thomas P. Rausch SJ, Reconciling Faith and Reason 45-46 (Liturgical Press, 2000): "A presentation of the Catholic tradition able to acknowledge not just development but also change in the doctrinal tradition is a more honest one." Cf. Robert McClory, Faithful Dissenters: Stories of Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church (Orbis Books, 2000).
"The two types of authority that concern us here (authority to govern and authority to teach) are, of course, distinct and can be discussed separately. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, we find that they are often intermingled, and sometimes even confused with each other. Over the centuries governing power has often been used (and misused) to bolster teaching authority. Such an approach can easily amount to little more than 'we are right because we are in charge' . . ." --Bernard Hoose, "Authority in the Church," 63 Theological Studies 107 (2002). See also Bernard Hoose, Authority in Roman Catholicism (2002); Bernard Hoose, ed., Authority in the Roman Catholic Church (2002).
I discuss the particular topic at issue in "Catholics, the Magisterium, and Same-Sex Unions," which is chapter 5 (pp. 86-97) of my book Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).
It is the solemn teaching of the Catholic Church, reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council, that the magisterium speaks with the true and certain voice of Jesus Christ when it proposes a teaching on faith or morals in such a way as to require the full assent of faith. So the question is whether the historic teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual conduct is proposed in such a way as to demand such assent. I'm sure that Archbishop Chaput believes that it is. In my view, he is on solid ground in that conviction. The teaching has long been proposed by the bishops united with each other and in communion with the Pope as an authoritative moral teaching that is to be held definitively. As such it is proposed infallibly by the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium.
Here is what Vatican II says about the conditions under which a teaching of that magisterium can be identified as requiring the full assent of faith: "Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively." Lumen Gentium 25.
Perhaps Michael P. would contest Archbishop Chaput's belief (and mine) that the specific teaching in question has been proposed by the bishops united with each other and in communion with the Pope as an authoritative teaching that is to be held definitively. The question is an historical and, to a considerable extent, empirical one. It would be interesting to debate it. What I don't think can be sustained, from a Catholic point of view (Protestants judge the matter differently, of course), is what I take to be Michael's suggestion that because the four Gospels do not contain words of Jesus on the question of homosexual conduct, Archbishop Chaput is off base in saying that the teaching of the magisterium on the subject is the teaching of Jesus Christ. If Vatican II reliably transmits the doctrine of the Church, which I believe it does, then the magisterium can indeed proclaim the teaching of Christ, even on matters not explicitly addressed by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
"In his written statement Tuesday, Chaput said the parents of Catholic
school students are expected to agree with church beliefs, including
those forbidding sex between anyone other than married, heterosexual
couples. 'The church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of
Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ,' he said."
The teachings of the magisterium, yes. But the teachings of Jesus Christ? I didn't realize that Jesus had anything to say about same-sex unions. What Gospel passages am I overlooking?
And does the archbishop intend to exclude children whose parents practice contraception? Children whose parents are divorced and remarried? Or just children whose parents are a same-sex couple--and if so, why?
In theology there is a well-established method which holds that God is so utterly ineffable, so utterly beyond our comprehension that there is little one can say about God, aside from what is known through revelation. Rather, the human mind can come to understand the Divine only by saying what God is not.
There might well be a parallel method with respect to answering the seemingly vexing question "What does it mean to be a Catholic university?" or "What should a Catholic university look like in the academic programs it sponsors and makes available to students?"
Recent history is of course marked by a variety of responses to this question. And that is to be expected. Surely there is a wide latitude within which a university can operate still be true to its Catholic identity. As to the specifics, well, reasonable people can disagree.
But this pluralism cannot be without bounds. There must be things that a "Catholic university" is not. Hopefully we can all agree that Catholic identity cannot be found in providing an advocacy platform for views that the Catholic Church believes are not only untrue but profoundly unjust.
Hopefully we can all agree that a Catholic university doesn't look like this.
I'm grateful for the friendly tone of Steve's most recent comment, and happy to reflect with him on the important question he raises:
"I wonder in general what the standard is for calling one’s Catholicism into question and I wonder whether [Ted] Kennedy’s actions ever crossed that threshold."
I've already said all I intend to say about Ted Kennedy's conduct, and I've cited biographical works that contain all the gory details. Here I'll say a word in reply to Steve's question about "the standard for calling [some]one's Catholicism into question." I think it is legitimate---and sometimes necessary---to do so when a politician cultivates an image of himself as devout and uses his religion for political gain, yet consistently defies its tenets in the way he lives. Such a politician can scarcely appeal to the "judge not" principle to immunize himself from criticism or to condemn those who expose his hypocrisy.
That is why I opened my very first post replying to Steve with the following points:
"Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and Edward M. Kennedy (until public revelations of his conduct made it no longer possible) each depicted himself, or permitted his political machinery to depict him, as a man who was loyal in belief and practice to Catholic teaching. They used their professed Catholicism to paint a false picture of themselves for political purposes. They sought to deceive the voting public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, about the kind of men they were, and they exploited the image they created of themselves as dedicated Catholics who lived by the teachings of the Church."
Had the Kennedys (those I mentioned, not everyone in the family---certainly not Eunice Kennedy Shriver, for example) not ginned up a false image of themselves as deeply loyal to Catholic teaching and exploited that image for politican gain, there would have been no hypocrisy for Professor Arkes, me, or anyone else to point out.
Steve says that he finds attacks on the dead to be unsettling. This is to his personal credit, but I think I can assure him that it is not a function of his "liberal squeamshness." Like Steve, I live in a segment of the world populated almost entirely by liberals. In my twenty-five years as a professor, I've encountered no squeamishness about criticizing dead conservatives---often in the most vituperative terms. You can test this yourself: just mention "Richard Nixon" or "Ronald Reagan" or "Jerry Falwell" in the faculty lounge.
I'm all in favor of religious communities managing their own membership boundary lines -- a meaningful sense of belonging presumes a right to exclude -- but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the rationale behind removing the child of same-sex parents from Catholic school. This story is generating the predictable left-right divisions within the blogosphere, and I don't have much interest in contributing on that front. I'm more interested in what this says about the nature and mission of Catholic education. I can see how tailoring the school's teaching to the preferences of parents might cause concern, but assuming that the school stays true to Church teaching, why would the presence of a child being raised by a same-sex couple cause a scandal? And don't the kids who are not exposed to the Church's values at home have the most pressing need for the Catholic school's teaching?
I did not attend Catholic school (nor do my kids), so I'm by no means an expert here -- is it common for kids to get kicked out of Catholic schools based on the conduct or lifestyles of their parents? E.g., Are children of Mafia figures kicked out? Have children of divorced and remarried parents been kicked out? I don't intend these questions to be snarky or rhetorical -- the Church's witness on an issue that is so prone to reflexive accusations of mean-spirited discrimination requires consistent and principled policies. Has the Church been consistent in deciding which children may attend Catholic schools?
Thanks to Fr. Araujo (and others) for responding to my post asking how the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses legitimizes same-sex marriage. I'm trying to figure out what's doing the "work" of legitimization here: whether it's the very fact that benefits are being extended to a same-sex partner that matters, or whether it's the message sent by that extension, which obviously will depend on the circumstances. Let's say that, in a state where SSM is not recognized, the state legislature, rather than passing a law recognizing SSM and forbidding discrimination against same-sex spouses in the provision of employment benefits, passed the following law:
The state government will not enter into a contract for services with any organization unless the organization 1) makes health care coverage available to its employees; and 2) makes coverage available for the employee's dependents, as well as for one other adult with whom the employee is in a caregiving relationship, as designated by the employee.
Inartful legislative drafting aside, would this still be a problem for Catholic organizations?
I will make three final observations regarding Robert
George’s attack on the Kennedy family:
1.I see his point about social justice. I had read
him to say that the Kopechne matter together with Kennedy’s position on
abortion and stem cell research justified the Arkes conclusion.
2.I did not maintain that Ted Kennedy’s only grave
sin in his life took place forty years ago. I observed that George’s attack was
based on a forty-year old matter. In reply, George contended that Kennedy’s
later life was so marred by sin that it is appropriate to call his Catholicism
into question. I doubt George means that Kennedy’s statements about his
religious faith were fraudulent. Given that virtually all Catholics sin on a
daily basis, I wonder in general what the standard is for calling one’s
Catholicism into question and I wonder whether Kennedy’s actions ever crossed
that threshold. Perhaps all George means to say is that Kennedy committed many
grave sins in his life that were not consistent with Catholicism. If so,
Kennedy had much company, but I took George to be saying something more.
3.Finally, I do not agree that the question is
whether Catholicism benefits when Catholics expose unjustified reputations of
other Catholics. Perhaps, it is my liberal squeamishness, but I find attacks on
the dead to be unsettling. I agree that criticism of politicians is fair game
when they are alive. But the Bible is filled with admonitions like Do not
judge, so you will not be judged. Matt: 7,1. See also Luke 6:37, 41, Romans 14:
10, 13. I must say I regret the instrumental mode in which these admonitions
are cast, but the message is that such judging is not for us. If this
admonition applies, the Church enters into no compact with the Devil by
following Christian principles. I realize this reading would have strong
counter cultural implications. It would have severe implications for
biographies. So perhaps, I read too much into this. At a minimum, it suggests
we should take no pleasure in negative revelations about the living or the dead
(I do not mean to suggest that George has taken such pleasure). And perhaps,
George’s recognition that he cannot really know what is in the heart of a
Kennedy or another person covers this. But my inclination is to believe that
the admonitions carry implications for daily gossip and for the ferocity with
which we engage those with whom we politically disagree. I do not claim I have
a well worked out view (and my comments to friends about Bush and Cheney regrettably
do not match my standards), but I think it is this inclination that has fueled
my response to George’s posts on the Kennedy family. I would be grateful if
Robert or others would comment on the meaning of these admonitions for our
private and public (whether teaching, writing, or blogging) lives.
A few days ago, at Public Discourse, Robert Coons asked, "What will replace Behemoth State University?" What can those of us who think about "the Catholic university question" contribute to answering his question? Comments are open!
Here's a more recent news story about a matter that came up before here at MOJ:
On a quiet street in this little town in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains lives a family of refugees who were granted asylum in the United States because they feared persecution in their home country.
The reason for that fear has rarely, if ever, been the basis of an asylum case. The parents, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, want to home-school their five children, ranging in age from 2 to 12, a practice illegal in their native land, Germany. . . .
“We’re all surprised [by the judge's decision granting asylum] because we consider the German educational system as very excellent,” said Lutz Hermann Görgens, the German consul general in Atlanta. He defended Germany’s policy on the grounds of fostering the ability “to peacefully interact with different values and different religions.” . . .
