Yesterday at religiousleftlaw.com,
I posted about Nicholas Kristof’s column on the two Catholic Churches. There I
summarize: He said it “may be easy at a New York
cocktail party to sniff derisively at a church whose apex is male chauvinist,
homophobic and so out of touch that it bars the use of condoms even to curb
AIDS.” He argues that the Boston Globe has done more to protect children than
the Cardinals. And he registers doubts that Jesus would have worked to protect
clergymen who raped children. Nonetheless, he finds much to praise in the base
of the Church. I concluded that those liberal Catholics who stay in the Church
do not do so because of admiration for Church leaders.
Later the same day Rick
Garnett responded to the same column. He began by quoting from Kenneth
Woodward’s fascinating column in Commonweal,
containing the metaphor that the New York Times is a rival magisterium. Although
the Times is influential and has its own institutional culture, many important
aspects of this “Magisterium” are important: it is secular
and secularizing; it promotes dialogue within the liberal framework –even
allowing the token conservatives a voice on the op-ed pages, without
suppressing opposing voices outside its pages; its liberal voice makes it the
paper conservatives seek to mock; from the perspective of those on the left, it
is timid and too cozy with those in power; among its readers, I would bet that
its editorials are largely unread – certainly in comparison with the opinion
columns.
After citing Woodward, Rick
says that almost “on cue” (not sure why it was on cue), Kristof, according to
Rick, offers the "yes, the institutional
Church and its old, out-of-touch, male leaders are no good, but the real
Church is out there, in the trenches, doing things I like" story that
one often hears. Actually,
Kristof’s claim is not that the people in the trenches are doing the “things he
likes,” but the works of Jesus and, he maintains, that the leaders of the
Church have drifted from the message of Jesus.
Rick admits that the people Kristof describes in the
Sudan are doing “good work,” and they are. For example: “But
what about Father Michael Barton, a Catholic priest from Indianapolis? I met
Father Michael in the remote village of Nyamlell, 150 miles from any paved road
here in southern Sudan. He runs four schools for children who would otherwise
go without an education, and his graduates score at the top of statewide
examinations.
“Father Michael came to southern Sudan in 1978
and chatters fluently in Dinka and other local languages. To keep his schools
alive, he persevered through civil war, imprisonment and beatings, and a
smorgasbord of disease. “It’s very normal to have malaria,” he said.
“Intestinal parasites — that’s just normal.”
“Father Michael may be the worst-dressed priest
I’ve ever seen — and the noblest.
“Anybody scorn him? Anybody think he’s a
self-righteous hypocrite?
“On the contrary, he would make a great pope.”
In response, Rick says, “To be clear, the people
in Sudan whom Kristof describes, and admires -- but does not, I think, I
understand -- are doing good work. But, when Kristof imagines
himself competent (or inspired?) to declare that so-and-so would be "a
good pope" (how does Kristof know this?), I cannot help thinking of
Woodward's "rival magisterium" observation.”
I
wonder what Rick supposedly gets about the Sudan that Kristof doesn’t (Kristof
does mention the birth control position of the Church regarding Africa – is
that what Kristof does not understand about the Sudan). I think that the
suggestion that a servant of Christ in the trenches has qualities that are
relevant to Papal greatness is a good one. And with respect to the magisterium
claim, it is worth noting that Kristof is arguing outside the Times secular
perspective.
Rick
then presses onward: “For Kristof, there are good guys (and women) helping the
poor in Africa, and bad guys, in Rome, issuing ‘paleolithic edicts on social
issues.’ What he doesn't get, in my view, is the Catholic claim that the
Church's ‘paleolithic’ opposition to abortion comes from the same place as its
commitment to the dignity of the poor, that its ‘paleolithic’ proposals
regarding sexual morality come from the same place as its call to generosity,
and self-gift. In a similar way, Pope Benedict's recent encyclical,
I thought, was misunderstood by people who, like Kristof, think that the
Church's social teachings are a disconnected jumble, rather than the
implications of a unified and animating moral anthropology.”
Actually
Kristol does not mention abortion in his column. He does mention homophobia,
the failure to protect children, and birth control in connection with aids. In
addition, he understands “why many Americans disdain a church whose
leaders are linked to cover-ups and antediluvian stances on women (perhaps Rick
thinks that the reference to women is code for abortion), gays and condoms —
but the Catholic Church is far larger than the Vatican.” I am quite sure Kristof
thinks that the Church’s positions on gays, birth control in connection with
aids, and the failure to protect children are inconsistent with Christianity.
If they all can be squeezed into a unifying moral anthropology, so much the
worse for the anthropology. Finally, if Kristof meant to refer to abortion, I
think it utterly improbable that Kristof is unaware of the way abortion fits
into Church teachings. He may disagree with those teachings, but I doubt he is
confused.
Finally,
Rick turns to David Bonagura at the Catholic Thing. Rick says that Bonagura
also responds to Kristof. In fact, Bonagura responds to a different, but
similar column by Kristof.
Rick cites a paragraph from Bonagura that is about the role of Christian love
in promoting social justice. The New York Times might or might not disagree
with the paragraph, but surely Kristof would agree. Finally, Bonagura reacts to
this line from Kristof (in the column Rick was not responding to): “Jesus
himself focused on the needy rather than dogma, and went out of his way to
engage women and treat them with respect.” Bonagura says “Dogma and rules do not
distract the Church from social justice; they allow social justice to flourish
by pointing it towards its proper and ultimate end.” In context, however, I
think it clear that Kristof is focused on what he believes to be inhumane
(e.g., when one spouse has HIV aids, the couple may not use birth control)
unchristian dogma and rules.
Leaving,
but taking off from Rick’s post, I have heard it said that the current crisis
in the Church is the greatest since the Reformation. I do not know if this is
true, but we are surely in the midst of a crisis. I do not think it has been
helpful that (as I said in an earlier post at religiousleftlaw) Spiro Agnew
apparently returned from the dead to be the chief advisor to the Vatican:
“Circle the wagons and attack the media.” Any public relations persons would
have told the Vatican to apologize, apologize, apologize, and focus on what is
now being done to address the issue. It is certainly arguable that Pope
Benedict has enormously matured on this issue and that, if he were replaced,
the new Pope would not be as good on this issue – sad as that speculation might
be. And the Church leaders are stuck with (and proud of) their conservative
teachings.
At
this time, many Catholics are contemplating leaving the Church (in the U.S., a
greater percentage leave the Church than any other denomination). Nicholas
Kristof gives a message to those who will never be persuaded to admire the
leaders of the Church: “So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not
the same as the Catholic Church. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers
may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic
Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a
difference.”
cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com
