Monday, October 8, 2012
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding."
— Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 11 April 1823, Adams-Jefferson Letters, Lestor J. Cappon, ed., II, 594
Sunday, October 7, 2012
This (critical) review, by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg, makes me wants to read this book, by Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Here's OUP's description:
The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.
Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.
Nagel's skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.
In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.
Here's a new book by my friend and colleague, Dr. Kenneth Garcia, "Academic Freedom and the Telos of the Catholic University." The blurb:
This book presents a theologically-grounded understanding of academic freedom
that builds on, completes, and transforms the prevailing secular understanding.
Academic freedom in the secular university, while rightly protecting scholars
from external interference by ecclesiastical and political authorities, is
constricting in practice because it tends to prohibit most scholars from
exploring the relation of the finite world to the infinite, or God. In the
Catholic university, true academic freedom means both the freedom of the scholar to pursue studies unencumbered by external interference, and freedom to pursue knowledge beyond the boundaries of specific academic disciplines toward an infinite horizon.
Check it out.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
1. The Church has no expertise in economics, which is a technical area best left to experts.
2. We should emphasize private charity over state action.
3. We should draw a hard line between non-negotiable teachings and prudential judgments.
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an eidolon named Night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have wandered home but newly
From this ultimate dim Thule.
Maybe it's because Halloween is upon us that as I read Larry Solum's terrific new piece, The Effects of NFIB v. Sebelius and the Constitutional Gestalt, I thought about Edgar Allan Poe's poem and the mysterious eidolon (as well as the unmappable isle of Thule). An eidolon can mean either an unachievable ideal or an insubstantial phantom; both images suit my purposes. Larry opts for the more psychiatrically sober metaphor of the gestalt to describe the "indirect effects" of the Commerce and N/P Clause portions of the health care case. In this post, I thought to (a) describe his discussion of those indirect effects; (b) note a similar (even if not parallel) development in the Supreme Court's treatment of the Free Exercise Clause; and (c) pose 2 questions about the sorts of doctrinally destabilizing resolutions that this Court seemingly favors.
My student and one of our terrific fellows at the St. John's Center for Law and Religion, Andrew Hamilton, has posted, The New York Marriage Equality Act and the Strength of its Religious Exceptions. The paper (supervised by my colleague Mark Movsesian) explores whether the religious exceptions under the New York same-sex marriage law allow Catholic Charities to refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples.
We're also proud to announce that Andy's paper won third prize in the national "Religious Freedom Student Writing Competition." It will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies. Andrew will be traveling down to Washington D.C. this Thursday to attend the 2012 International Religious Liberty Award Dinner, whose guest of honor is Douglas Laycock.
Over the past several days, influential journals of opinion and web newsites [here, here, here, here, here, here, and here] have taken to task the Catholic Church, particularly members of the hierarchy, for doing what she, the Church, must do: teach the truth of God and the Church. Some of these journals of opinion and boggers have argued that the Church’s presentations have been inflammatory, not because of the rhetoric but because of the positions taken and advanced. However, when one actually reads the Church texts that are cited or watches the video of their presentation, the modifier “inflammatory” does not come to mind, but reasoned discourse does. If one is interested in seeing “inflammatory” language, a better source to satisfy the appetite may be to see how these journals themselves present their perspective on the news. If one searches further, you will find that many journals of opinion and bloggers today refer unforgivingly to those with whom they disagree. It is difficult to comprehend why do some of these journals and bloggers castigate officials of the Church and those who agree with Church teachings when they express respectful disagreement with words and deeds that are contrary to Church teachings and the natural moral law? It may be in part because the critics find these words, as Gospel (John 6:60) reminds us, hard to accept.
Of course, it is clear that some members of our society disagree with the content or at least elements of the Church’s teachings. That is their prerogative; however, this prerogative does not make them or their opinions correct. By the same token, the Church has the same right to speak and teach her Teachings that are protected by the same rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Over the last several years, some opponents of the Church’s teachings (including some folks who identify themselves as Catholics) have argued that the Church has overstepped boundaries in what is permissible for the Church (and voices that agree with her) to do in the public square and what is not.
A common theme of many the critical opinions is that the Church’s teachings can be divisive; therefore, they ought not to be conveyed so as to minimize division. I doubt that the intention of the Church is to spread division. But I am confident that the intention is to propose God’s truth to the faithful and other people of good will. This is something which rubs against some elements of American and other western societies today. It is clear that the journals of opinion and bloggers that I have cited above (a modest sampling) treasure their right to speak. And they must be protected in their right. But at the same time, so must the Church’s voice be protected. Moreover, anyone who disagrees can express his or her or its opinion, but theirs is not the right to silence the voice with which they disagree.
As the only resident cleric of the Mirror of Justice community, I will be celebrating the Eucharist this coming weekend at a Chicago area parish where I regularly assist. If you check the readings for this Sunday, the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time (cycle B), you will see that the Old Testament and Gospel texts are about marriage. I intend to preach about marriage and the vital role it exercises in the Church and in civil society. I will principally address the nature of the human person and the complementarity of the sexes acknowledged by the scripture. I suppose there may be some who will accuse me of mixing politics with religion. Really? But I have a reply to any criticism arguing that I am doing something from the pulpit that is “divisive.”
There is a part of my response which focuses on the First Amendment protections to point out something that an objective understanding of human nature concurs with the complementarity of the sexes argument mentioned in the Old and New Testament readings. Another part of my response is in the form of a question about why should there be inequity of treatment of what can be presented in a public forum between the views of the Church and those voices which disagree with the Church’s teachings? A recent illustration comes to mind.
Two weeks ago I had the occasion to be in the Twin Cities to deliver a paper at the St. Thomas University conference on Vatican II. As I stayed at the Midwest Jesuit novitiate nearby, I walked to the conference venue as it was a pleasant early fall day. On my journey, I passed a number of houses of worship which displayed a version of the poster “Vote No: Don’t Limit the Freedom to Marry” which has been displayed by folks and institutions that do not want to limit legal marriage in Minnesota to a union of one man and one woman. As you may recall, Minnesota has a state referendum concerning the definition of marriage. During my walk, I noticed that several houses of worship had the sign “Vote No” but added to the standard poster “People of Faith Vote No: Don’t Limit the Freedom to Marry.” Some other houses of worship did not display this sign. I wondered if they might have a congregation which largely holds the view that one should vote “yes” on the marriage amendment, but for some reason they did not think that they should express their view on this important public and moral issue. If they did have a reason for refraining from having a “Vote Yes” sign placed on their house of worship, I further wondered if it might emerge from a fear about offering a contrasting view on a matter of public policy where there is great and deep division on the question of the definition and meaning of marriage.
On Sunday, I shall preach on the scripture readings from Genesis and Saint Mark’s Gospel and relate them to the Church’s teachings. I shall also touch upon the role of the faithful as disciples of Christ who are also citizens of the City of Man and who have a voice in public policy debates. Will I receive complaints about what I may say from the pulpit? Will I be accused of doing something “divisive” by preaching in concert with the Church’s teachings as revealed in sacred scripture?
Totalitarian regimes have tried to snuff out the truth from the pulpit, but surely it would be unbecoming of and antithetical for a democracy to do the same.
RJA sj
Friday, October 5, 2012
Here's the abstact of a new paper, 'Religious Freedom,' the Individual Mandate, and Gifts: On Why the Church is Not a Bomb Shelter, that I recently posted:
"The Health and Human Services' regulatory requirement that all but a narrow set of "religious" employers provide contraceptives to employees is an example of what Robert Post and Nancy Rosenblum refer to as a growing "congruence" between civil society's values and the state's legally enacted policy. Catholics and many others have resisted the HHS requirement on the ground that it violates "religious freedom." They ask (in the words of Cardinal Dolan) to be "left alone" by the state. But the argument to be "left alone" overlooks or suppresses the fact that the Catholic Church understands that it is its role to correct and transform society, not merely to be left alone in a gilded cage. This paper uses the HHS mandate as a vehicle by which to clarify the Catholic understanding of the ideal -- but currently mostly unachievable -- relationship between Church and state: the state should receive its principles from the Church, not the Church from the state. Social justice and subsidiarity disallow a state that reduces the Church to the status of a bomb shelter. Leviathan is happy to have the Church out of sight and out of mind."
The paper can be reached here. Its argument proceeds by unpacking the place of the respective munera of associations, above all the Church in her many manifestations such as schools and hospitals, and of individuals. The concept of munus (of which munera is the plural) conjoins the Aristotelian notion of function and the theological notion of vocation. The bottom line is that munera are gifts to be given, not possessions to kept in a bunker. The world thinks of the state's sovereignty in terms of power; Catholic social doctrine understands the state to be in service to all.
Check out this post (which has a nice shout-out to this article, by my colleague Lloyd Mayer) by Paul Horwitz on the church-autonomy principle and "pulpit freedom Sunday."
As I wrote in the comments to Paul's post, I agree with him (I think) that the notion of there being *some* limit on the political activities of tax-exempt organizations, including churches, is not itself inconsistent with "church autonomy" / "the freedom of the church." At the same time, I also think there are fuzzy, "yay for pluralism and diversity among civil-society institutions that serve as checks on government power" reasons for thinking that we should give even tax-exempt religious institutions a lot of lee-way in this area.
For more, see my "A Quiet Faith? Taxes, Politics, and the Privatization of Religion" (here).
I find the following two recent statements by the estimable Cardinal Dolan impossible to reconcile.
Statement 1, the more recent statement, is this:
"I am worried that we may be reducing religious freedom to a kind of privacy right to recreational activities, reducing the practice of religion to a Sabbath hobby, instead of a force that should guide our public actions, as Michelle Obama recently noted, Monday through Friday." The context is here.
Statement 2, the somewhat earlier statement, is as follows:
"That’s all it’s really about: religious freedom.
It’s not about access to contraception, as much as our local newspaper—surprise!—insists it is. The Church is hardly trying to impose its views on society, but rather resisting the government’s attempt to force its view on us.
Vast and unfettered access to chemical contraceptives and abortifacients—all easier to get, they tell me, than beer and cigarettes—will continue. If you think it’s still not enough, then subsidize them if you insist. Just don’t make us provide them and pay for them!" (emphasis added) The context is here.
Statement 2 sure sounds like a plea to privatize the Catholic religion. The alternative would be for the Church to teach, as a "force . . . that guide[s] our public actions," that no one should engage in conduct that violates the moral law. When, instead, the claim is that what it's "all . . . about" is "religious freedom" and nothing more, the Church ceases to be a force that guides our public actions. It's not just about "religious freedom," however. It's also and fundamentally about the Church's divine mission to correct and transform society.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
