The Wisdom of Kristof

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