Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A view of the Thames from Thomas More's cell in the Tower of London
The essence of being human
To re-echo Robby and Rick in the context of the discussion on Gilbert Meilaender, it is not the avere but the essere which is essential to human beingness and human dignity.
RJA sj
Can the USCCB be wrong?
Michael P. linked the other day to an editorial in Commonweal which (among other things) asks "is there a possibility that the USCCB might be wrong?" It seems to me that the editors are beyond-question-right in observing that, with respect to "highly technical legislative and legal questions," it is possible for the USCCB to be wrong -- that is, to misunderstand what, in fact, the legislation or policy in question actually does or will do. This is true with respect to complicated health-insurance legislation, and is also true with respect to policies and proposals regarding immigration, taxation, public-assistance, farm-subsidies, foreign aid, etc., etc.
It strikes me that the important challenge for all of us -- in the context of the current health-insurance debate, I think it is Catholic "liberals" who face this challenge; in some other contexts, it is Catholic "conservatives" -- is to do all we can to be sure that, in opposing the bishops' policy judgments, we are indeed motivated by an informed and good-faith disagreement about a matter with respect to which the bishops have no special teaching authority, and are not instead animated by a (perhaps unacknowledged) rejection of the underlying moral principle, with respect to which (I assume) the bishops do enjoy such authority. I am confident that our friends at Commonweal are in the former position, but no one should imagine that (say) Nancy Pelosi is, too.
Tollefsen on healthcare, abortion, and conscience
Following up (sort of) on Michael's link to the recent Commonweal editorial about the bishops' participation in the healthcare debate, here is Prof. Christopher Tollefsen, writing on the dilemma that he thinks pro-life citizens might soon face when selecting health-care plans.
St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More
Today, we celebrate the feast day of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, two Catholic heroes who refused to go along, merely "for friendship's sake", with Henry VIII's power-and-money grab.
Here is a powerful clip from Showtimes' "The Tudors", depicting the execution of Fisher. And here is the execution of More, from the same series.
More on Meilaender
I want to echo the disappointment that Robby expressed regarding Gene McCarraher's (uncharacteristically, I think) mean-spirited and unfair letter about Gilbert Meilaender to which Michael linked recently. Prof. Meilaender is, in my view, among the most eloquent and inspiring Christian thinkers alive. Here is more from Neither Beast Nor God:
To be a person is not to have something but to be someone. It is persons who are equidistant from Eternity and equal in dignity. . . . As human beings we share the characteristic human form and participate in its dignity, whatever our individual traits or capacities; as persons who always exist in relation to God, we are radically individual and equal.
Burquas in Spain
Spain is considering a ban on burquas
in government buildings, maintaining that the clothing is demeaning to women.
As I understand it, Islamic women decide to wear burquas as part of a
commitment to modesty. It is hard to see why this would be “demeaning” to
women. Even if it were demeaning, it is almost as hard to see why government
would be warranted to intervene in these clothing choices, let alone why
government would combat such demeaning clothing only in government buildings. Perhaps the idea is that men force
women to wear this clothing. Apart from the fantastic empirical assumptions
(men think the clothing appropriate, but women do not), relieving women from
involuntary choices only in government buildings has little to recommend it. In fact, the claim of protecting women is insulting.
The point of this proposed legislation is to assault human dignity, not to protect it. It is Spain’s attempt to show that it too can stigmatize minorities.
cross-posted at religiousleftlaw.com
Gilbert Meilaender
I don't know why Michael Perry posted (without comment) on MoJ the vituperative and, to my mind, grossly unfair attack on Gilbert Meilaender that appears as a letter to the editor in Commonweal. I do know this, though: Gil is one of the finest, most honorable people I've ever known. I suspect that others in the MoJ family who know him feel the same way. His support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons and other associates from power in Iraq, was not rooted in "militarism." Whether one agrees or disagrees with his view, no one can justly accuse him of holding it mindlessly or of having bad motivations. On this issue, and on all issues, Gil was and is open to argument and willing to engage in thoughtful and civil debate. He does not deserve to be smeared with the suggestion that he is, in fact, "interested . . . in selling a cheap edition of conscience and authority." The letter Michael posted does not report, much less engage, the arguments Gil advanced for his position, or his counterarguments in response to those who opposed military action to remove the Hussein tyranny. It simply hurls scurrilous allegations, such as the defamatory claim that "Meilaender is not too keen on protecting life from the clutches of militarism." Anyone who knows Gilbert Meilaender, or who has actually read his work, knows how utterly false this is. One needn't share Gil's views about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq to acknowledge that he deeply cares about human lives---be they the lives of unborn babies, disabled persons, the elderly, American combat troops, Iraqi civilians, Marsh Arabs, or Kurds.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Catholic Unity, Teaching, and Belief
Thanks to Michael P. for his directing our attention to the June 14 Commonweal editorial entitled “Catholic Unity.” The thrust of the editorial pits the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) against others regarding the March 23 health care law.
The editorial raises two interesting, rhetorical questions. The first is: “What makes the USCCB and its legal and legislative staffs so confident that they alone are competent to understand the new health-care law?”
The second question then follows: “Is there a possibility that the USCCB might be wrong?”
The editors of Commonweal then answer their own questions in the editorial by stating, in essence, that the voice of the Catholic bishops is but one voice in the Church—a major voice but still only one voice; and that the bishops’ conference was wrong in not supporting the health care legislation that became law on March 23. The editorial contains an remarkable presupposition that no one could agree with the position advanced by the bishops; however, this supposition is incorrect. One might add that not everyone who is or claims to be Catholic agrees with the position advanced by the Commonweal editors and those who concur with them.
This makes me wonder: what is the source of unity, and what is the source of this apparent division in which the editors of such a well-known journal (and those who agree with them) pit themselves against those who are called to be the Church’s teachers? What is it that the Church teaches about unity? Whose job is it to unify Catholics? The answers to these questions should be clear to all Catholics.
Thus, we must not forget what the Second Vatican Council said regarding such matters, i.e., the role of bishops, their duty, and their authority: “Bishops... have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith...” (Christus Dominus, N. 2) And, one of the things about teaching that fall within their competence is to address the subject of civil laws (such as the health care legislation) within the understanding of the doctrine of the Church so that the doctrine will be understood by all the faithful. (CD, N. 12) It is the specific duty of bishops to teach the faithful so that they have the capacity to defend and propagate the Church’s doctrine in a world that rejects Her teachings. (CD, N. 13) Moreover, it is the role of the bishops, in communion with the pope, have the responsibility of maintaining the “unity of the flock of Christ.” (Lumen Gentium, N. 22) It is the further responsibility of the bishops “to promote and safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church.” (LG, N. 23) The faithful are reminded that they are to adhere to their bishops “so that all may be of one mind through unity.” (LG, N. 27) The Commonweal editors may well be free to express their opinions, but this does not mean that they speak with the Church’s teaching authority that is charged with the clear responsibility of promoting the unity of Her members. This authority and responsibility rest elsewhere as the Second Vatican Council demonstrated in the texts I have quoted.
As we prepare to celebrate tomorrow’s feast commemorating the martyrs John Fisher and Thomas More, we might recall another time in which some members of the Church went along with the government’s fiat but others did not. Many of those who did not, such as Fisher and More, suffered greatly. But they remained true to what the Church taught and to which Catholics were called in the exercise of their free will to believe. They understood the unity that is vital to the condition of following Christ in spite of the personal cost.
Saints John Fisher and Thomas More, pray for us!
RJA sj
Speaking of Gilbert Meilaender, ...
... as Rick just was: I was reminded of this letter about Meilaender that appears in the current issue of Commonweal:
ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE
Paul Lauritzen portrays Gilbert Meilaender as a stalwart defender of human life (“Intellectual Street Fighter,” May 21). But from what I’ve seen with my own eyes, Meilaender is not too keen on protecting life from the clutches of militarism. On the subject of the war in Iraq—one of the foremost assaults on life in our time—Meilaender was conspicuously absent without leave. In the spirit of Meilaender’s alleged candor and bluntness, allow me to relate the following incident.
In the fall of 2002, I attended and delivered a paper at a conference held at Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture. Naturally, as those months were a tense prelude to the invasion of Iraq, several of the panels were devoted to war and peace. (All of them were bellicose, I might add, especially the ones dominated by Evangelical scholars.) One of the bigger-ticket panels featured Meilaender, Russell Hittinger, and an Air Force veteran and scholar whose name I’m glad I can’t remember. The Air Force vet was clearly hopped up for war. Hittinger mumbled some forgettable remarks about the United Nations, the tone of which, I do recall, was not favorable. Meilaender’s talk was unmemorable as well, but during the Q and A, he revealed himself to be a good deal more credulous than Lauritzen’s profile would lead you to think.
A student stood up and said, “Look, we all know that governments have lied in the past. Why should we believe what the Bush administration is telling us now about weapons of mass destruction?” A nice direct question for the panel to address, and one that Meilaender should have been glad to take on. No doubt thinking that the lad was some peacenik, Meilaender shook his head, chuckled in an avuncular fashion, and replied, “Oh, I don’t think we have any reason to think that we’re being lied to.” Here’s a man clearly old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin, My Lai, and Watergate, and what does he do? He counsels credulity and submission.
I wonder how Meilaender feels now, complicit in his own small way in the lies, duplicity, and slaughter of that senseless war. Clearly, Meilaender would rather beat up on stay-at-home dads, or working mothers, or gays, or some other beleaguered group rather than stand up to a government engaged in waging a criminal war. So I can’t credit Lauritzen when he writes that Meilaender “is not interested...in selling a cheap edition of conscience and authority.”
EUGENE MCCARRAHER
Villanova, Pa.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
