This morning, Pope Benedict met a group of U.S. bishops on their ad limina visit with the Holy Father, and he delivered to them an important address dealing with religious freedom in the United States. [HERE] His remarks echo the sentiments of Paul VI who, at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, stated to the temporal authorities of the world that the one thing that the Church asked of them was the freedom to exist in order that she may advance her mission without impediment. Implicit in this request of Paul VI was the necessity to promote in public forums the Church’s teachings that are critical to the development and preservation of the moral and virtuous life and the promotion of the common good.
Today, Benedict XVI reemphasized this central objective. As he, Benedict, stated,
At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
Like many others, the pope is aware of the recent erosions of authentic religious liberty around the world, including the great democracies. He stated that true religious freedom has been beneficial to the establishment and the progress of our nation that has promoted human flourishing and the advancement of the common good. Yet, the pope also noted that,
For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.
The pope continued his exhortation by emphasizing the crucial relationship between faith and reason that is essential not only for the Church but for all of civil society. This does not mean that the Christian perspective will always control the outcome of public discourse, but it does mean that this point of view must nevertheless always be a substantial and meaningful part of the discourse. As Benedict asserted,
The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a “language” which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.
The Holy Father further realized that there presently exist dangers to the Church’s ability, through all her members, to serve as an advocate and a public moral witness that is essential to the common good by providing a critical counterpoint to the “radical secularism” of the day that increases its influence on the political and cultural dimensions of civil society. In one particular context the pope identified the assaults against the right to enjoy the benefits and public exercise of the well-formed conscience, an issue frequently discussed here at the Mirror of Justice.
The pope continued by expressing that it is essential to the preservation of authentic religious freedom that “an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity” (and here, I suggest that this means any person who thinks with and not against the Church) provide this essential counterpoint in the debates surrounding the important issues of the day. The Holy Father also expressed his gratitude to those ecclesiastical officials who have maintained contacts with Catholics in public life who have or can have an impact on the outcome of the political, social, economic, and cultural debates that often determine what is constitutive of our democratic society.
I, for one, pray that all members of the Church around the world, but especially here in the United States, will take to heart the words of the Holy Father and the encouraging and challenging words he has offered.
RJA sj
Friday, January 6, 2012
Over the past week or so several of my friends here at the Mirror of Justice have been posting thoughtful presentations regarding some of the hot button issues of the day (such as same-sex marriage) and the Church’s role or lack of it concerning public policies and the formulation of legal norms—be they statutory or constitutional—addressing these policies and laws.
It is clear that within the community of persons who identify themselves as Catholic there is a wide range of opinions about issues such as marriage; sexual orientation and gender identity; autonomy; and the rights and liberties of the individual person. To discuss and debate these issues is a very American thing. Of course robust disputations are not restricted to Americans or to lawyers since they often occur in other political and legal cultures around the world. However, in the United States, they often exercise a prominent role in public life. A number of us here at the Mirror of Justice have defended the right of the Church to participate in these deliberations. After all, she has a distinctive teaching role that often contributes to advancement of positions which many, if not most, people of good will share.
For example, when the Church, through her principal teachers (the bishops), enter discussions about economic reforms that advance the common good, immigration reforms that are designed to improve the legitimate interests of the sovereign state and the migrant person, or the promotion of racial equality, most folks applaud the involvement of the Church. However, when it comes to neuralgic subjects like “reproductive rights” or same-sex marriage, the scenario changes dramatically especially when members of the hierarchy who, in the proper exercise of the ecclesiastical responsibilities, take positions that conflict with some of the other participants in the political and legal debates. Some of these folks insist that the Church, through her bishops, is violating the “separation of church and state.”
But in fact, there is no such constitutional principle. The constitutional principles which do exist regarding religious matters prohibit an establishment of religion and protect the free exercise of religion. The latter includes the right of religious persons and groups, including the Catholic Church, to enter public life and express their views and seek the implementation of their proposals that advance the common good.
It is clear that Michael Bayly (blogger of The Wild Reed—Thoughts and Reflections from a Progressive, Gay, Catholic Perspective), the individual whose position on same-sex marriage conflicts with that of the Twin Cities archdiocese and whom Susan brought to our attention earlier today, has a right to advance his views.
But so does Archbishop Nienstedt.
In addition, the archbishop has a duty to do so which is in part based on his Profession of Faith and his taking the Oath of Fidelity. When a man is called to orders in the Catholic Church, he is obliged to make the profession and offer the oath. Whether every person called to orders in the Catholic Church does this with a sincere, personal commitment is a question I cannot answer. But it is evident that the archbishop has taken his profession and oath earnestly. So do I. This is a fact that others must take stock of as they enter the field of debate on the important issues of the day.
It does seem that in a number of influential circles, the Church and her teachers should not be permitted to engage others in the public square on matters that are of interest to society; however, it would be anathema if the members and representatives of these same circles were forbidden to enter the arguments of the day and express their views.
Should the Church and her perspectives be denied participation in any public debate on the vital issues involving the making and enforcing of law and the development of public policies, this great country, her institutions, and the right to participate in public life will be endangered. Then we as a political and legal society will be another step closer to a totalitarian regime that presents itself to the world as a democracy.
RJA sj
Saturday, December 17, 2011
A few days ago, Pope Benedict XVI issued the 2012 World Day of Peace message. [HERE] Even though these messages traditionally bear the date of January 1, they have been traditionally issued on December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. This year’s message is entitled “Educating Young People in Justice and Peace.” While there is a lot to digest in this relatively short text, there are a few important points worth focusing on here since the Mirror of Justice is dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory—and surely education, justice, and peace have something to do with this project.
The Holy Father begins this message by noting that young people are gifted with enthusiasm and idealism (yet, perhaps not during final exams); therefore, they are often a source of new hope for the world. Educators have a role to exercise in helping to direct and inform this enthusiasm and idealism. In this regard the Pope points out that those who have a responsibility for the education and formation of young people (I would think this includes law professors) must acknowledge the impact they can and do have on what inspires the enthusiasm and objectives of the young. The attending obligations that educators have must then have to understand the difficulties which all face regarding hope for the future and what are the sources of these obstacles.
One of the major obligations of educators, then, concerns the need to help the young see beyond themselves. If we are truly living in an “it’s-all-about-me” culture, there is an antidote to the problems which such a taste engenders.
It is responsibility. Claims, meaning rights, are important, but there is more to the theme of rights for them to mean something that is durable and good—and that is responsibility. Without responsibility, the freedom that rights claims stimulate will be nothing more than the misguided pursuit of license to do whatever I want to do simply because I want to do it. But with responsibility guiding the way, the independence of rights will eventually enable the one exercising rights to recognize that this exercise necessitates interdependence.
And the best realization of this is the interdependence that anyone can gain in the family where the mother and father are both present and with their complementarity that exercises a sustaining love that can be passed on to the next generation regarding the challenges that the young will inevitably face. Within this exercise of love come many other facets of the education that anyone would ever need—including profound insight into what is just and what is peaceful. The external educator who is outside this family bond, including the law professor, has an important role to ensure that these educational precepts are continued in the environments where the young go. Alas, so often they are not, but there is our challenge.
I pray fervently that we are up to the challenge to see and to instill these truths about who we are and what we can do together! As Pope Benedict, relying on St. Augustine, recalls: what does the human person desire more deeply than truth? That is, truth about: who one is; who one is in community with others; and, who one is before God. If these are the questions posed by all educators, then the vital answers desperately needed for enduring justice and peace will follow—with the help of God. And there will reign justice and peace.
RJA sj
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has recently published a short essay in The Atlantic [HERE] entitled “Out of Step With the Flock: Bishops Far Behind on Birth Control Issues.” She is highly critical of the U.S. bishops for not taking a bold stand on economic matters, and she intensifies her caustic critique by arguing that they have “not infrequent disdain for the faithful.” Her bone of contention in this essay is this: the U.S. bishops do not agree with her on the stance they have taken regarding the impending requirements that all employers provide health care coverage for “reproductive health services.” Two points need to be made here at this stage: the first is that Ms. Kennedy Townsend demonstrates her unfamiliarity with the many public policy issues with which the bishops have spoken with strength and conviction on the pressing social and economic issues of the day that intersect Catholic social thought. The second is that she assumes something that cannot be assumed by anyone: her belief that she speaks for all women, especially Catholics, on an issue of morality.
She makes a particularly remarkable claim by stating that:
With yesterday, the 8th day of December, marking the Feast of the Immaculate Conception – which refers to Mary’s being conceived free of original sin, not the conception of Jesus – it would be wise of the bishops to realize that the conception of Mary by her human parents, Saint Joachim and Saint Anne, is a reminder that woman [sic] are people of conscience and can decide for themselves when it is best to conceive. In fact, birth control use is universal, even among Catholic women: 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control during their reproductive years.
Does she mean to suggest that Joachim and Anne were forward thinking people like herself who know how to use family planning? When Ms. Kennedy Townsend contends that “women are people of conscience and can decide for themselves when it is best to conceive,” she fails to note two important Catholic teachings. The first is that conscience is not doing that which you simply want to do on your own accord. This would be a perilous excuse for license. Conscience is that ability with objective reason to make the election between good and avoid that accords with recognition of the moral quality of an act in accordance with divine law. While Ms. Kennedy Townsend’s view coincides with that of Planned Parenthood and NARAL/ProChoice, it does not complement or coincide with the teachings of the Church. The well formed conscience is that place within the human person where one “detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience.” [Gaudium et Spes, N. 16] The second failure she demonstrates is her lack of familiarity with the Church’s teachings that parents have the responsibility to “space the birth of their children” and it is their duty to ensure that the decisions made are “not motivated by selfishness” but in conformity with objective criteria of morality. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, N. 2368] These criteria for spacing children’s births, moreover, cannot include those “methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.” [Gaudium et Spes, N. 51]
Ms. Kennedy Townsend’s essay does not reflect these teachings of the Church to which she affirms she has been a member all her “lifelong.” Yet she deems herself competent to chastise “conservative bishops” who conspire “with congressional [sic] Republicans to undermine” the promises of the new health care law. She is offended that the bishops want the conscience protections afforded to “religious employers” extended to all institutions that bear the moniker “Catholic.” She does not take stock of the fact that any institution which claims to be Catholic is finding it more and more difficult to be faithful to its identity as Catholic because of the very pressures from the state which she wants the Church to embrace.
A major justification for her withering criticism of the bishops is that they are “out of step” with their flock. For her, what is good or what is correct is determined by majority vote as she argues with her illustration of the Papal Commission on Birth Control.
Another argument upon which she relies is that “Church-affiliated institutions employ millions of non-Catholics who signed on to earn a paycheck.” For her, this means that these valued employees have the final say in determining what their Catholic institution employer can and cannot do on moral issues. Again, this is perilous and faulty reasoning on her part. She suggests that it is the non-Catholic employee who can determine what the Catholic employer can and cannot do on matters dealing with serious moral issues. A grave problem with her justification is the further claim that there is no legal justification for the bishops’ “ethically dubious” position. If that is indeed the case, which it is not, then let’s get ready for the hurdles that will be used to take the offenders to their earthly justice that she wishes to see dispensed.
A final point needs to be made today about Ms. Kennedy Townsend’s appeal. She further suggests that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s Note, “Reform of the International Financial System” offers clear-sighted instruction from the Vatican from which the American bishops could profit. Of course, if she thought about the impact of this remark for a moment, she would realize that they, the bishops, in fact follow the Universal Church’s clear-sighted instruction on all moral issues including the ones on which she censures them.
While Ms. Kennedy Townsend is no longer a holder of public office, she still wields some influence in the forums of public life. She is entitled to do this. But I add a caveat: when she critiques others, especially those with whom she disagrees, she should be better prepared with her facts and her understanding of the Church and the Church’s teachings. Otherwise the service she intends to provide becomes a disservice to all.
RJA sj
Thursday, November 24, 2011
A blessed Thanksgiving to one and all!
Having just spent a wonderful time with the fratelli in the Order at Mass and dinner, I began to think about the words that have been and are being spent to discuss and critique the upcoming implementation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal this Sunday for the first week of Advent.
I think for those who are or may think they are upset about these liturgical text changes, we need to take honest stock of the liturgical license that some priests and some laity have exercised over the past three-plus decades in presenting their own texts for canons of consecration and the other prayers associated with the Second Edition of the Roman Missal. If we can do this taking stock honestly and objectively, I think we will reach no other conclusion but this: the Third Edition is a long expected and welcome reform that has been called for in these thirty-some years of liturgical experiment that had no end in sight.
It may well be that if these ongoing experiments with the Eucharist had not been pursued, the Second Edition of the Roman Missal might still have been around for some time to come. I do think the Third Edition is a wonderful reform of authenticity, but I am confident that the Second Edition was the unfortunate test subject of unrestrained creativity in subjectivity.
RJA sj
