A thoughtful reader of MOJ sent me the following:
"[With respect to] your outrage that the U.S. Army has placed the Catholic Church alongside al Qaeda....isn't the Army, actually, right? That is, once you realize that, from the perspective of the State, the issue is not whether the Church and al Qaeda are morally equivalent, but whether they are able and willing to contest the State's pursuit of its own interests, then of course the Church and al Qaeda are equivalent.
"I actually take pleasure in the Army's slip of tongue, as it were, since it helps us get rid of the illusion that our State has any conception of justice that does not reduce to the pursuit of its own economic and political advantage. In any case, perhaps it will awaken certain Catholics from their dream that the somewhat militarist civil religion of America is compatible with what the claims of Catholicism actually entail.
"So be of good cheer! George Bernanos saw this coming, what, sixty years ago?"
___________________
My correspondent (whom I do not know personally) makes a profound point. Our current predicament was not only predicable but, in fact, predicted.
At the risk of being told again to "dial it down," I am reminded of something Pope St. Pius X wrote in "Notre Charge Apostolique" (1910):
"Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO."
There is no surprise in the fact that our government, at whatever level, cannot think straight, least of all about the Church.
This Thursday, April 11, I'll be giving the Kamm Lecture on Law and Society at Wheaton College (IL) on the topic "Can Religious Liberty and Political Progressivism Coexist? Reflections on the HHS Mandate." It's at 7:30 p.m. in the lecture hall of the Science Building (SCI 145). I'm glad to join the list of illustrious past lecturers including our own Messrs. Garnett and Vischer.
UPDATES: (1) And Michael Perry, I've learned, gave the Kamm Lecture in 1995: still more previous luster! (2) I had a very enjoyable day at Wheaton with excellent questions and comments from the audience at the lecture and a stimulating discussion earlier with students in MOJ-friend Bryan McGraw's political-thought class. Thanks to Wheaton's business/law scholar Steve Bretsen for hosting me and for great conversation too.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Mike Helfand passes along a notice for a very interesting looking conference entitled, "International Legal Theory Interest Group Symposium: The Rise of Non-State Law." Proceed here to view the symposium in full,to be held on May 2 in Washington, D.C. Here is the description:
Trends in legal philosophy, international law, transnational law, law & religion, and political science all point towards the increasing role played by non-state law in both public and private ordering. Numerous organizations, institutions, associations and groups have emerged alongside the nation-state, each purporting to provide their members with rules and norms to govern their conduct and organize their affairs. Indeed, questions regarding non-state law have moved to the forefront of recent debates over legal pluralism and transnational justice, forcing scholars and practitioners to consider the new and multifaceted mechanisms ways in which we govern ourselves. This International Legal Theory Interest Group Symposium will explore this Rise of Non-State Law by bringing together experts on international law, transnational law, legal theory and political philosophy to consider the growing impact of law that derives from outside the nation-state.
The symposium is co-sponsored by the American Society of International Law and Pepperdine Law School. Michael's own work also treats some of these subjects and is well worth your consideration.
Yesterday, I called attention to the *fact* (and no one disputes the *fact*, even if it was reported by the Washington Times inter alia) that the U.S. Army, in an official publication, placed the Catholic Church in the same category as al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I continue to think that this gross and pernicious falsehood is worthy of outrage, condemnation, and protest. I have been criticized for being "militant." I resemble that remark, because I do indeed believe that the Church here on earth is *called* to be militant. But, as any educated person knows, the Church is called to be militant not in the ways of terrorists but, instead, by faithful preaching and living of the Gospel and by the ardent and devout celebration of the sacraments. A culture that appropriates the Gospel and exudes the graces of the sacraments will be one in which the peace of Christ reigns, and it doesn't get better than that.
I readily admit that I continue to be impressed by the lack of *outrage* that the Army is not being held accountable for this lie. This is easy to analyze, despite what some of my critics say. Either the categorization came, as the Army implausibly contends, from *outside* of the chain of command, or it came from within the chain of command. If the former, then we should be outraged at the lawlessness in the Army. If, as is overwhelmingly more likely, from within, then the question is this: *where* in the chain of command was this allowed? encouraged? required? *Wherever" it came from, it should be condemend and repudiated from the top. Bureaucratic government, such as we have, is not an excuse for lies and falsehoods. There must be accountability. One might speculate -- and it is only speculation -- that this bureaucratic categorization was launched as a trial balloon.
And this brings me back, finally, to the issue of the bishops' silence. Our Church is under attack (and not just by the Army), and the Church militant, led by the hierarchy, must respond and defend the rights of Christ's Church. But if the hierarchy can't be bothered, then the lay faithful at least must insist that the U.S. government -- whether in the Constitution, statutes, or bureaucratic action -- not lie about the nature of the Church. Is that too much to ask?
The thief comes in the night, which is why I am unimpressed and unmoved by Bob Hockett's instruction to "dial it down."
