Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Lest we forget...

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

Lest we forget, today is the thirty-eighth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Many Americans—as well as others—will commemorate in some fashion this landmark decision. Some will celebrate, but others will mourn. I find myself in the latter category. Why?

First of all as I reread the decision penned by Justice Blackmun, I realize that he did not, contrary to the opinion of others, answer the question he posed about the personhood and the humanity of the unborn. As lawyers, we know that the use of language is important to the position we argue and then seek to justify. In a manner of speaking, Justice Blackmun posed the question about the status of the unborn, but he dodged the bullet when the trigger was pulled when he said, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” (Italics added)

In spite of the fact that there may not have been consensus in 1973, Justice Blackmun was in a position to answer the question then just as we are today. Consensus is not essential to answer any difficult issue. Facts and objective reason, on the other hand, are crucial to the task. And what do the facts state: that the fertilized ovum is a new human. On that point, it is worth reflecting that each one of us was in this precise state in the earliest moment of our human existence. While in our mother, we were not simply of our mother. We were us and no other. We were different. We were separate. We were human. We were new. Objective reason helps us to understand these facts and to comprehend their significance about the meaning of being human and being person.

If consensus was not essential to specify: why separate was not equal, viz. Justice Harlan in Plessy; why it was wrong to conclude that “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” viz. Justice Butler in Buck v. Bell, consensus is surely not needed to conclude that a child in utero is, in fact and in reason, a member of the human family, new and distinct from the mother and father—or the donors of genetic material, if you prefer.

Let us not forget this. Then we might be in a far better position to help not only the woman who finds herself pregnant and in some difficulty but also the child whom she carries in her womb whose continued existence is also at stake if arguments based on “privacy” or “equality” or something else lead some to justify that his or her life may be destroyed.

 

RJA sj

 

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Hope

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Does hope spring eternal? It should for the Christian. However, like most people, I can enter those dark moments when hope seems far distant. But there is reason to hope about hope.

One of my current evening reading projects is to read (once again) and pray over the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, the General Examen, and the Formula of the Institute—foundational texts of the Society of Jesus. I am presently reading the edition translated by the late Father George Ganss, S.J. In his introduction to these documents, Fr. Ganss offers important historical insights that relate to my topic of seeking hope and knowing that God provides. Events of our recent times can lead us to despair, but should we not hope for deliverance? When classroom efforts and research and publication appear to be activities that offer little satisfaction, should we not hope that they are the work of discipleship—making the connection between faith and legal reasoning?

As I continue reading the Ganss edition, I came across his discussion of the hopelessness that existed during St. Ignatius’s time. His insights helped to focus my attention on why hope is and must be real for the disciple. Fr. Ganss points out that during the early sixteenth century when Father Ignatius was initiating the efforts that would lead to the order’s recognition by the Holy See, the “known” world was immersed in war; ignorance infiltrated vast percentages of the population; religious division was prevalent; few of the laity attended the sacraments; the number of priests was in steep decline. But, good disciples existed and recognized the need not only to work but to pray to God and to place hope in His mercy and His answers to prayers. Wars ended—at least for a while; religious ignorance was dispersed—at least for a while; divisions within religious communities were replaced with some reconciliation—at least for a while; vocations within the priesthood and religious life began to rise again—at least for a while.

Those responsible for aiding in the improvement of these difficult conditions appeared to have one thing in common: their hope and their trust in God. I keep thinking that this is a good tonic for us in the present age as we confront the anguish of our own time. While it may be easy to critique the times, it is also within our reach to put aside desolation and replace it with hope and trust in God. This is the work, the labor of love, of any true disciple.

 

RJA sj

 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Catholic ©, Catholic ®, Catholic ™

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

A few weeks ago our friend and colleague, Richard Myers, posted on the subject of recent developments in the St. Joseph Hospital (Phoenix) abortion case. [here] As we know from Richard and other sources, Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix has, under his proper canonical and ecclesiastical authority, decertified St. Joseph’s Hospital as a Catholic institution. At the time of his original posting, Richard also raised an important and pressing question about the connection of the canonical issues between the Phoenix hospital case and the use of the term “Catholic” in describing a college or university. I followed up with a brief posting citing what I believe is a relevant Church document source from the Second Vatican Council, i.e., the Decree on the Laity, that has a bearing on the ability of some institutions to hold themselves out as Catholic foundations. [here]

During the Christmastide break, I have given further thought to these interrelated issues of what happened at St. Joseph’s Hospital and what could happen or has happened at Catholic colleges and universities. A catalyst for this additional consideration was my recalling how, within recent times, several institutions of higher education (e.g., Marist College, Marymount Manhattan College, Saint John Fisher College, Webster University, Nazareth College, and Manhattanville College) are no longer Catholic institutions of higher learning. The path taken by each of these institutions toward their current status is not the same; however, the result in the context of their institutional soul is. And it is this last point that intensifies the significance of the point raised by Richard. Why?

First of all, Bishop Olsmstead has acknowledged the connection between actions pursued by St. Joseph’s Hospital and at least one member of the theology faculty at Marquette University. Other commentators have noted that some Catholic institutions, when engaged in morally problematic or questionable activities that conflict with Church teachings, are shopping for those academics who will provide the institution with ethical justifications for the actions that may be taken or are taken but which, nonetheless, conflict with Catholic teachings.

This in itself is testing for at least two reasons. The first reason centers on the conscious search undertaken by a “Catholic” institution for a “Catholic authority” that departs from Catholic teachings. The second materializes when someone asserts that the justification offered and relied upon departs from authoritative Catholic teaching. In this latter context, the position is sometimes expressed that the authoritative teachings of the Church are simply one view on a complex issue, e.g., abortion. This very position was purportedly advanced by one of the senior administrators at St. Joseph’s hospital who was attributed with making the statement that “many knowledgeable moral theologians have reviewed this case and reached a range of conclusions.” When pressed by Bishop Olmstead, the same administrator contended that “this is a complex matter on which the best minds disagree.”

The ensuing conflict between the bishop who holds and exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the region in which the problematic activity has occurred at a Catholic institution and those responsible for the activity has led Anne Hendershott to address the circumstances where bishops have “little effect on the culture and curriculum” of Catholic colleges and universities in her recent article published in The Wall Street Journal. [here] Ms. Henderson further notes that the same tension existed when the U.S. bishops and many academics took different stands on the final legislation that became controversial health-care law passed by the Congress last year. Ms. Hendershott has labeled this disagreement as the product of “an alternative magisterium.” Elsewhere I have used a similar moniker: the shadow magisterium.

I may be proven wrong, but it seems that it is this alternative or shadow magisterium will be the source of future problems and conflicts between bishops and the academy that currently uses the modifier “Catholic.” In addition, I wonder if the list of formerly Catholic colleges and universities will continue to grow. Pope John Paul II seems to have agreed with some of the concerns expressed in my claim when he said in Veritatis Splendor,  N. 113,

Moral theologians, who have accepted the charge of teaching the Church’s doctrine, thus have a grave duty to train the faithful to make this moral discernment, to be committed to the true good and to have confident recourse to God’s grace. While exchanges and conflicts of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is in no way established by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts. When this happens, the Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected. “Never forgetting that he too is a member of the People of God, the theologian must be respectful of them, and be committed to offering them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of the faith”. (Quoting from the CDF’s “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis, May 24, 1990)

Time will tell whether the tension between some Catholic academics and ecclesiastical authorities will grow and whether the list of formerly Catholic colleges and universities will expand or not. While some may argue that it is too late to maintain the size of this list to its current number, I have hope that people of good will who labor in this part of the Lord’s vineyard will come to recognize the great treasure that will be lost forever if the list does indeed expand.

 

RJA sj

 

Friday, December 31, 2010

The Catholic Legal Educator

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Teachers for All Seasons—Lord, give me a sign (Matthew 28:16-20)

            On the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God to whom our web site project is dedicated, I would like to offer the third and final installment of my disciple/teacher reflection.

            Prior to his ascension into heaven, Jesus exhorted his disciples with this command, sometimes referred to as the Great Commission: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:18-20) There are occasions when the meaning of these words are clear to us today, but there may be occasions when an illustration or two might help the contemporary disciple understand what he or she is called to do in teaching what Jesus commanded. Like Gideon, our petition for assistance is raised, “Lord, give me a sign!” (Judges 6:17) Or, in today’s vernacular: I need a little help here! I think those of us who teach law to future leaders of civil society have a great role and enormous responsibility in this Commission.

            Disciples of today have been blessed with many signs that involve the world that surrounds us and how we should respond to this world—those signs which recommend proper conduct or action and those which do not. In an American environment of discipleship, there are two sources of instruction that serve as some of these signs regarding proper conduct: those from the local bishops and those from the Universal Church. In the domestic context, these signs emerge from either the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in Washington, D.C. or from individual bishops to the faithful of their dioceses. In a universal context, they are issued by the Pope in the exercise of his office and by the various dicasteries of the Holy See.

            One particularly important sign from the domestic scene was issued a few years ago. The USCCB in June of 2004 exercised its role as the college of American bishops to teach the Catholic faith and moral law when they issued a Conference statement on the subject of Catholics in public life. As they stated, “We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice.” They noted that the legal and political system must not be used as a tool of evil, and the bishops asserted that the legal system sometimes fails to protect “the lives of those who have no protection except the law.”

            The bishops continued by stating that those persons responsible for making the law have an obligation to remedy morally defective laws, and they extended their good offices in providing counsel to those in need of instruction on how to accomplish this objective that protects the moral order and the common good. The USCCB acknowledged its duty to persuade all Catholics to support the principles the bishops exhort regarding how the faithful are called to act in public life.

            Another important sign came in November of 2002 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in a doctrinal note for the benefit of the universal Church addressed some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in public life. While the text was directed to the bishops of the Church, it was also directed “in a particular way” to “Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.” That includes us, especially those of us who help form tomorrow’s judges, legislators, and government executives! The CDF noted that the success of how citizens make political choices is contingent upon their proper understanding of the nature of the human person. And where would they receive information about this?

            Special attention was given by the CDF to “the rightful autonomy of the participation of lay Catholics.” The CDF as a teacher helped to clarify the role of the laity in public life—be the Catholic practitioner of the law, judge, administrator, legislator, or citizen. The CDF, aware of the problems of merging the Church and the State, articulated a careful but clear instruction to the laity. It defined their coexistence in such a way that the Church and the State each have their proper roles in the world. However, it is the citizen, whose conscience has been formed by moral teaching of the Church that is directed to the common good, who has the right and the duty to pursue the truth and to promote and defend moral truths that bear on society, authentic freedom, justice, and the advancement of human rights including the non-derogable right to life.

            The fact that a source of the truth upon which a citizen relies may be the teachings of the Church does not disqualify (1) the Church from teaching that which may be used by the citizen nor (2) the citizen from using that which the Church teaches regarding the moral issues affecting law and politics. The Church does not interfere with the State’s proper function, but She does retain and must exercise Her proper role to provide instruction on moral truth that can be appropriated and used by the citizen in his or her participation in the exercise of the democratic process. The Church does not intrude into the affairs of the State by exercising political power that She does not possess; however, the citizen is free to rely on the truth which the Church teaches instead of the relativism or secularism which others promote and sometimes urge on citizens as they exercise their judgments made in the political processes in which the citizen participates.

            It is problematic to insist that the citizen must observe an unnatural dichotomy in his or her life insulating the spiritual and moral from the public and the political. In this regard, we can recall the Johannine text of Jesus farewell: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit...” (John 15:5) Those who would insist on defeating participation by the disciple-citizen would deny legitimate and authentic pluralism and would impose a regime of intolerant secularism on the civic community. This can result in the strong oppressing the weak, and it would transplant the environment of the 1930s and 1940s described by the German sacristan to the United States to which I previously referred in an earlier posting in this series to the domestic scene of today. In quoting Pope John Paul II, the CDF notes that the authentic freedom of the citizen does not exist without the truth: “Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery.” (Fides et Ratio, N. 90) And where might we learn about the truth and what distinguishes it from falsehood?

            A number of models of behavior reflecting the truth and related principles would be Thomas More and John Fisher from the early sixteenth century and the late Gov. Robert Casey from the late twentieth century. All were citizens. John Fisher was Bishop of Rochester, and Thomas More and Robert Casey were public officials who held high appointive or elective office. Fisher and More relied on their informed conscience molded by Church teachings and dared to practice the truth they learned to the peril of their lives. More was proclaimed the patron of statesmen and politicians by the late Pope John Paul II. In conferring this honor on Thomas More, John Paul emphasized the “unity of life of the lay faithful.” More and Fisher both relied on properly enlightened consciences that exercised fundamental truths in the field of political and legal issues that were punctuated with grave moral concerns.

            Closer to home, geographically and temporally, is the example of the late Gov. Robert Casey. He was a staunch believer in the rights of human beings—not just some, but all human beings. He was a progressive leader who sought relief and comfort for the oppressed. He was also a Democrat who disagreed with his party and its stance on abortion. If he were alive today, I suspect he might expand the realm of these disagreements. In 1992 he requested the opportunity to address his Party one last time at its quadrennial national convention; however, he was denied the honor. Curiously, the Democrats allowed several pro-abortion Republicans to address the convention. As one commentator noted, Gov. Casey was humiliated by the party he faithfully served for so long because he would not go along “for fellowship” (recalling the words of Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons) on the abortion issue.

            Teaching has something to do with the models offered by More, Fisher, and Casey faced in their respective lives and careers in public service. Ah, yes, there it is again: teaching. We can’t seem to remove ourselves from it! Reiterating instruction on the pressing moral and social issues of the day is the proper role of a teacher, and exercising this responsibility is not mounting scorn on those who are the pupils of this teaching. It is the exercise of a solemn obligation and fundamental moral duty of the bishops to inform the consciences of those entrusted to their pastoral and teaching duties. (Lumen Gentium, NN. 21, 27) But what they teach also becomes the responsibility of those other teachers who collaborate with them as fellow laborers in the Lord’s vineyard. Any Catholic—clerical or lay, office holder or not—cannot compartmentalize the discipleship and his or her public life and insulate one from the other. All Catholics, regardless of their clerical or lay state, are subject to observe and abide by the same teachings of the Church. (Lumen Gentium, NN. 24-25) It becomes the respective duty of each disciple, be one clerical or lay, to live these teachings holistically in one’s life. These teachings cannot be followed when it is convenient; they cannot be honored at one moment and ignored at another when one feels like it. A Catholic cannot conveniently follow those teachings that he or she prefers and ignore those which are not in accord with his or her personal favor that may be influenced by powerful or influential lobbying groups.

            Ultimately, each person who chooses to remain a Catholic exercises the freedom to adhere to the Church’s teachings or not. That is the authentic freedom of each Catholic regardless of his or her status in the Church as lay or clerical. But by proclaiming that one is a Catholic, one has declared to the world that he or she is a Catholic because of this exercise of authentic freedom. But when one elects not to follow these teachings on all fronts, can it be said that this person is in communion with the Church? If the bishop fails in his duty, can he be in communion with the Church? If the office holder fails in his or her duty, can he or she be in communion with the Church? If a teacher who bears the name Catholic fails in his or her solemn duty, can he or she be in communion with the Church? When this occurs, one removes himself or herself from the communion by severing ties between the branches and the vine.

            Those of us who use the moniker “Catholic” in identifying themselves grow from the vine of Christ on which we are branches. If we are to be true to our calling and identity as disciples, we need to acknowledge the role of the Great Commission in our lives. So, for so long as we choose to remain branches, we need to direct our energies to producing fruit abundantly in the name of Christ and the Church.

            My presentation was intended as an effort to contribute to the work of many fellow Catholic citizens to persevere in their individual endeavors to proclaim the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God—particularly those who labor in the legal academy. It is a modest effort to identify and examine the relationship between Catholic faith and the duties of the citizen who claims to be Catholic and who has an extraordinary influence on the formation of other citizens and disciples. As long as we freely choose to remain Catholic, we retain the responsibility to be faithful to the Church’s teachings if we are to be effective, contributing Christian members of the commonwealth. Catholics who exercise roles in American democracy (as voters, as officials, and as educators) participate in the exercise of discipleship by applying in this world the substance and content of communion with Jesus Christ and other disciples for the advancement of the common good.

            As disciples, we are citizens of two cities. Each of us is one person who holds and exercises various duties through this dual citizenship—we are the branches who remain tied to Christ, but we also exist and act in the temporal world. This fact should not deter us from embracing what Thomas More said when he declared his allegiance to both sovereigns, and God’s first.

            May my fellow contributors and readers of the Mirror of Justice be blessed with New Year filled with the inspiration of the Great Commission.

 

RJA sj

Monday, December 27, 2010

The Legal Academy and the Vineyard

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Growth in discipleship: Can a seed (of teachers) grow in the legal academy?—the harvest is great but the laborers are few (Matthew 20:1-16)

 

            The other day I posted the first in a short series about discipleship in the legal academy. Today I would like to offer a second installment which develops the concept of the mission of the disciple who is also a teacher of the law. As Catholics, we are summoned to labor in God’s name in many places which may not look much like vineyards, but in fact they are. Saint Matthew’s Gospel to which I have just referred provides the instructive parable of the landowner who goes several times to the market place to hire laborers for his vineyard. (Matthew 20:1-16)  The parable reminds us of the need to pursue the duties of discipleship regardless of the time when one hears the call—be it earlier or later in one’s life. As you see, we are on God’s time rather than our own. The call is the same regardless of the time of hearing it and the time of the response. God needs laborers to follow His son, for the harvest is great, but the workers seem to be few in number. As Pope John Paul II kept repeating in his post-Synodal apostolic exhortation, Christfideles Laici, “you go into my vineyard, too.” (Matthew 20:3-4)

A principal justification for this exhortation of John Paul is the role of the laity, considering the unique character of their vocation, to engage in the temporal affairs of the world and order them according to the plan of God. Through their call to holiness, the laity who encounter the temporal affairs of the world are the branches sprouting from Jesus’s vine. (John 15:1) And it is from these branches that God’s fruit will be brought into this world. While this may be a hard sell in a faculty meeting, the standards of the secular academy are not the final means for determining what the Catholic law professor is to do in his or her life. Through the efforts of the conscientious disciple, such objectives as God’s peace, the protection of human life and the preservation of the family—the basic unit of society, and the growth in authentic human wisdom and progress, and hope for the future can be cultivated, blossom, and produce abundant fruit. Just think of the role a teacher of the law can have on the relatively young minds of lawyers to be in achieving all this!

            Instilled with the mission of discipleship, the laity are called to be God’s conscious instruments in a world often plagued with exaggerated autonomy that ignores both the neighbor and God and sees only the isolated self. By remaining in contact with the magisterium of the Church, the laity, through their work, become a light to the world illuminating the minds and spirit of those who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the darkness of evil. In this regard, we need to take account of what John Paul II stated in his last World Day of Peace message issued in 2005, by recalling the words of St. Paul, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21) This is a noteworthy appeal to the disciples who labor in the many vineyards God has placed us.

            A major task in regard to pursuing and implementing St. Paul’s exhortation is the need to identify and counter the falsehoods that beleaguer the world today. As a teacher, I am always intrigued by colleagues who, in the context of discussion about violence against women, proclaim the merits of the “Monologues” of Eve Ensler but think it would be inane to discuss and learn the story of Maria Goretti. With regard to debates about human rights, I am captivated by the assertions of a vast cohort of teachers supportive of “reproductive rights and sexual autonomy” but ridicule or at least down play the most fundamental right of all—the very right to life itself. Indeed, the harvest is plentiful but the laborers seem to be few in number. Even if the numbers of disciples prepared to meet the challenges of this world are few, they should not be deterred from their work in light of the enormity of tasks that lie ahead of them for the harvest will remain plentiful.

            In a particular way, those called to the legal profession have numerous ways in which they can contribute to the betterment of the human family at the local, regional, national, and international levels. As members of the body of Christ who are trained in the legal and political mechanisms of society, they are suitably equipped to confront and remedy the sad mistakes of human manufacture, for as Jesus said, “I have appointed you to go forth and bear fruit.” (John 15:16) And the disciple responds to this call and goes into the world not in his or her own name, but in the name of Jesus for whom the disciple is an ambassador. (2 Corinthians 5:20) It is this person who is called to counter the errors of the false prophets of the day who seem to me to have a disproportionate voice in the development of legal and other norms that emerge in the contemporary culture of the early twenty-first century.

            When considering particular challenging topics that today’s disciple must confront, we turn to St. Paul who reminds us about the duties of citizenship and how discipleship and citizenship are designed to be complementary rather than separate and independent of one another. (Romans 13:1-7) But St. Paul also cautions that the civil authority also must be mindful of its duties and properly exercise its power for it is supposed to be an instrument of God as well. (Romans 13:4) Disciples are also citizens who have a role in determining the political, social, and economic structures in which they live and work and who thus have responsibility as keepers of our brothers and sisters—whoever they may be. An informative and perspicacious account of this important point appears in Cardinal Raymond Burke’s pastoral letter to the Church in St. Louis issued on October 1, 2004 entitled “On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good.” (At the time, the Cardinal was Archbishop of St. Louis) The cardinal began his letter with a story from the time of his study of the German language in 1982 and his associated work in a German parish. He got to know the sacristan of the parish church who had been a teenager during the rise of National Socialism. A “haunting” question persisted with the sacristan about how he and his fellow citizens of Germany could have permitted horrible evils to happen and to go on for as long as they did. The cardinal added another chapter to the story: how could the bishops, the shepherds of Germany, have failed in their instruction and exhortation to the laity regarding these evils? These accounts are provocative in that each is a catalyst for reflection by the clergy and the laity of the Church today according to the rest of Cardinal Burke’s pastoral letter concerning his former role as shepherd of the Church in St. Louis and the roles of the laity who are citizens or holders of public office regarding the evils of the present day. And what are these evils?

Within the context of the Church’s teachings and their natural law foundation that is based on the use of right reason, the evil to be avoided is frequently any situation in which either the self-serving interest of the individual prejudices the interests of other individuals in the community, or the interest of the collective harms or frustrates the flourishing of each individual. The Church in its totality is the principal agent of moral theology, reflection, and action; moreover, through the Church, the human race can recognize each member’s fellowship with the other and with God. This is akin to Pope Benedict XVI’s observation commemorating the Pastoral Constitution issued during the Second Council that the virtue of justice contains two inextricably related elements: “the firm will to render to God what is owed to God, and to our neighbor what is owed to him.” (Homily of then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 18 March 2005) The Holy Father’s point is related to the notion of justice as right relationship.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, the disciple might begin to address how to pursue this form of justice by thinking of Jesus addressing the same situation. The methods of instruction used by Jesus would vary, but they would include exhortation, the miracle, and the use of the parable. It is the parable that draws the listener-disciple into the lesson not only as an observer but as a participant as well. While the citizen as disciple is generally free to take action that he or she considers desirable (a type of freedom), the use of parable informs the individual’s conscience within a Christian context about the positive or negative action of the individual’s decisions. The parable of the Good Samaritan remains a powerful instrument of instruction and formulating a course of action for the disciple. (Luke 10:25-37) The lawyer in that parable who asks the question “who is my neighbor” is reminded of the nexus between love of God and love of the neighbor, and he learns what that means regarding human action in daily life. At the conclusion of the parable, he is instructed: “go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37)

Being a good citizen means being a good neighbor, and being a good neighbor means that one takes personal discipleship seriously. The cognizable neighbor in the parable is the victim of the robbers. But, the neighbor could be just as easily the persons involved with the issues outlined in the concerns from the Pastoral Constitution, i.e., murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction—or whatever else insults human dignity. The reader of the parable who becomes a participant in its teaching might identify with all the story’s characters that include the victim, the Samaritan, the robbers, the priest, the Levite, and even the innkeeper—that unsung hero who probably does what the Samaritan asks of him when the Samaritan must continue his journey and leaves the victim in the care of the innkeeper. The parable explores what the ordinary citizen, including the lawyer, can do as a disciple of Christ.

            Civic duty is compatible with, not contrary to, discipleship. The two are not mutually exclusive and, for the Catholic who is both disciple and law professor, inextricably related. When they become separated from one another, the tragic events underlying the story of the German sacristan as related by Cardinal Burke can be and often are repeated. Nonetheless, the disciple must be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove (Matthew 10:16) and recognize that some will reject the role of the disciple-citizen. For when Church authorities and citizens speak out on issues from the Catholic persona, they might be challenged, albeit on dubious grounds, that this “preaching” is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But, do these same critics, especially when they have access to mass media outlets that welcome their strongly secularist or even anti-Christian views, exercise similar restraint? It often appears that the result is dependent on who is doing the preaching and whose Gospel is being preached. Whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers and sisters, that which you do unto me. (Matthew 25:40) It is a well-formed Christian conscience that richly contributes to the public debate by adding alternatives that reflect genuine pluralism and diversity and is not subjugated by the monolithic view of a culture that is antagonistic to the religious viewpoint— a viewpoint essential to the discussion not by “imposing” but by “proposing.” Nevertheless, conscience is under attack and efforts are underway to silence those who exercise it in good faith and for the promotion of the common good.

            Regarding the important role of the well-formed conscience, one need only recall the story of the German sacristan—why did people do nothing? Because if they did, their lives and their livelihood and other manifestations of existence would be adversely affected, sometimes even in harsh ways. But, notwithstanding these persecutions, people of conscience are demonstrating to the world that they will not be swayed as the pharmacists and health care providers are demonstrating.

            But if one assumes the title of disciple, does not one also assume certain risks that go along with the vocation? In answering this question, one need only recall the names of all those disciples in the Roman canon who were martyred for their beliefs and the exercise of their conscience. There are indeed risks of proclaiming the truth, the Good News that some treat as unwelcome, but there is the moral obligation not to give into bullying or pressure, subtle or otherwise. Sound prudential judgment may dictate when this obligation is exercised in a public fashion, but it does not mandate avoidance of the obligation in perpetuity.

            Disciples of today shoulder duties in the name of God and His Son. There are occasions when these disciples need not fear the decisions they take in the public square so long as those decisions sufficiently coincide with the views of the secular components of society; however, there may be occasions when the situation is otherwise. It is clear that if the disciple may not be able to eliminate that which is evil entirely. That is understandable, but the disciple has the continuing obligation to ensure that the evil in this world that is of human manufacture at least be reduced if it cannot be eliminated at present.

            Those who consider themselves good citizens and good disciples seem to be neither when it comes to some of today’s difficult issues such as euthanasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, or certain kinds of stem cell research requiring the creation and inevitable destruction of human embryos. They may assert: “I cannot legislate morality” or “I cannot impose my religious views on others who do not share my faith” as some Catholic politicians have opined. It may seem odd that when the matter under debate involves some aspects of civil rights or criminal legislation addressing, for example, sexual assault or welfare reform or increasing medical benefits for the underinsured or uninsured or the protection of civil rights, the reservations toward the religious perspective tend to be absent. But why do they surface when the matter involves the conscious destruction of human life—the most precious right of all, for without it, all others wither? When these events take place and chill the words of deeds of the disciple in contemporary life, we find ourselves on the decline back to the Germany of the sacristan who met Cardinal Burke and asked why he and his fellow countrymen did not do something to stop the spread of evil.

            Being silent with regard to the vital issues confronting the human family is not always golden. The exercise of silence can be prudent and sometimes offers a useful delay to consider the best manner of addressing a grave problem. But, when all is said and done, silence is rarely a solution to difficult problems that must ultimately be addressed. It can be, in some of today’s political debate, a form of weakness and fearfulness or cooperation (material or formal) in perpetrating and continuing evil. That is why the disciple of today must be willing to embrace the exhortation of John Paul II—“Be not afraid!” This exhortation surely applies to those of us who call the classroom our part of His vineyard.

RJA sj

Friday, December 24, 2010

The Great Discipleship of Teaching

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

The call to discipleship—on the Way to Emmaus (Luke 24:1-35)

            For many, Christmastide and the end of the calendar year provide an opportunity for many individuals to reflect upon one’s life, livelihood, and vocation. For the Catholic Christian, this reflection may include a personal evaluation of one’s discipleship. One of the things that I have reflected upon concerning the joint enterprise I share with others at the Mirror of Justice is what is Catholic legal theory and how can I contribute to its development that is consistent with the faith and the teachings of the Church. Much of what I have to offer for the consideration of others takes place in the context of individual and shared efforts as teachers who labor in the classroom, the symposium, and the world of publication. These personal reflections will appear in three installments commencing with today’s posting. It concentrates on the personal and corporate call to discipleship.

Some years ago one of my students stopped by to discuss the course that she had taken with me. At the end of our conversation, she asked if she could present a personal question regarding faith and the Catholic Church. Accustomed to these kinds of questions from students and a few colleagues, I responded in the affirmative. She then inquired in a sincere fashion if she were a “bad Catholic” since she was “pro-choice.” Her question is of the kind that I have always anticipated being asked regarding the divide between the Catholic faith and endorsement of public and political views inconsistent or in tension with the teachings of the Church. The existence of the division is something that I prefer would not exist, but it does.

As I responded to my student’s inquiry, I thought about the ongoing debate in the United States within the context of the elections regarding Catholic public officials and citizens and the multifaceted duties regarding some of the difficult issues of public policy involving including abortion, embryonic stem cell research, armed conflict, and homosexual marriage—for these constitute some of the pressing issues of the day that involve the intersection of the Catholic faith and public policy that is the subject of the law. Somewhat eclipsed by the notoriety of public officials and their positions on these important contemporary policy matters is the related matter involving the Catholic citizen and his or her duties regarding voting or campaigning on these various contested issues of the day and Catholic faith the citizen professes.

Knowing that bishops, clergy, public officials, and citizens have provided, some times amply and audibly, their views on this important relationship between citizenship and faith, I plan to address the issue of the respective obligations of the Church’s teachers and the young faithful whom we encounter through the various manifestations of our teaching. Given this context, many Catholics in the United States find themselves in conflict over their faith and their roles in public life. It is not absurd to suggest that each Catholic citizen is a participant in the Christian vocation of citizenship. My purpose in doing so is not simply to pursue didactic objectives; it is also to present the efforts of a fellow laborer in the vineyard to encourage, support, and make a modest contribution to you to persevere in your particular endeavors to proclaim the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God in your great work.

The principal objective today is to identify and examine the relationship between Catholic faith and the duties of the Catholic citizen. It is my position that there is nothing in the civil law and associated regulations to preclude the Catholic office holder or citizen from adhering to the teachings of the Church in the exercise of one’s respective public duties. Moreover, the citizen and the office holder have the obligation to be faithful to the Church’s teachings if he or she is to be an effective, contributing Christian member of the commonwealth. This means that the Catholic who exercises a role in American democracy simultaneously participates in the exercise of discipleship by applying in this world the substance and content of communion with Jesus Christ and other disciples.

I shall elaborate on this by investigating the following points: (1) what the call to discipleship means to the citizen who is also a believer; (2) how the believer must grow in response to the duties of citizenship and discipleship because “the harvest is great but the laborers are few” and how the Christian citizen must be open to receiving appropriate instruction from those whose duty it is to teach; and, (3) by relying on several historical models, demonstrating how Christian citizens—especially teachers—are called to be people for all seasons. I begin my presentation by turning to an early account about two disciples.

            This element of my examination is rooted in the story of Cleopas and his friend—two disciples who, on their way to the village of Emmaus, encounter the resurrected Jesus. (Luke 24:13-35) Something prevents them from recognizing Jesus until they dine together and Jesus, after having said the blessing, breaks bread with them and, in doing so, shares communion with them. When Jesus quickly disappears from their sight, they then recognize who he is, and they are energized with the breaking of the bread and communion with Jesus to continue his work mindful that the “repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations.” (Luke 24:47) By being in communion with the Lord, they are restored to active and animated discipleship and respond to the call to serve in his name. Without the communion with Jesus, they seemed to have no direction in their lives but were “downcast.” (Id. 24:17) They needed him to do the work they were called to do, and with him they were fortified to labor in his name. Through their communion with Jesus, they maintained right relation with God and with their neighbor. Being in communion with God, His Son, and the Church is essential to anyone’s discipleship regardless of whether one lived in the time of Jesus in Palestine or in the United States at the present time.

            Of course, Cleopas and his friend have been succeeded by many faithful disciples including those of the present day. Throughout the Church’s history, they have been simultaneously challenged and invigorated in their work of following the Lord in this world—the very Lord who is Emmanuel whom we welcome this evening at the Christmas Vigil. Indeed, their actions have been threatened by other individuals, groups, and the state. Nonetheless, they have also been fortified by the Lord in answering his call: “come, follow me.” (Matthew 9:9) For example, in the 1930s, the lay groups called Catholic Action were targeted by elements of the Fascist state in Italy and later by National Socialists in Germany and other countries. The functions of Catholic Action served as the leaven in this world by instructing the members of their society about the teachings of the Church vital to public life. Many members of this important association persevered in their discipleship notwithstanding the difficulties and persecution they faced. Many bishops, priests, members of religious communities, and lay leaders exhorted them to persist.

            More recently, the faithful Catholic laity were reminded of their duty to continue the same and related functions in society by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Two principal documents of the Council address the role of the Catholic disciple in the world and political life. The first is the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). Two significant points about the Pastoral Constitution must be noted here. The first is that the Council spoke to Catholics and “in order to shed light on the mystery of man and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time.” (G&S, N. 10) The second crucial point needing emphasis is the recognition that the Church teaches that human existence is permeated by the unchangeable reality rooted in Christ. (Id.)

These two key points acknowledge that the Church and its individual member are called to advance the dignity of each human person in solidarity with all others. Thus, interdependence and the common good are complementary to rather than in conflict with the individual person. The Council highlighted these points by stating that each member of humanity of the contemporary world is obliged to take seriously the duty to love one’s neighbor—whoever that may be. In a powerful use of scripture, the Council reminds all what Jesus taught: “As long as you did it for one of these least of my brethren, you did it for me.” (Matthew 25:40) The text of the Pastoral Constitution goes on to illustrate this calling by stating that the Church and its members have a duty to combat whatever is “opposed to life itself” by identifying murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, willful self-destruction, or anything else which “violates the integrity of the human person.” (G&S, N. 27) Illustrations of these violations against human integrity include: subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, disgraceful working conditions, and trafficking in women and children. The Council confirmed that these acts injure not only their victims but also insult God, the Creator of each person. Sadly, they still proliferate throughout the world today including our own country.

Disciples are challenged to address all of these problems that face the contemporary world and challenge human existence. Catholics are citizens of two cities who are called to discharge civic responsibilities with the exercise of a Christian conscience inspired by the Gospel. (G&S, N. 43) By way of elaboration, the Council expanded on its explanation of this duality of citizenship. First of all, it specified that the person who is a Catholic cannot profess belief in the Gospel but ignore it in everyday life. As the Council stated, it is wrong to “think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations”; a Catholic cannot plunge one’s self “into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from religious life.” (Id.) For those who assert that faith is a private matter and not to be inserted into public affairs, the Council admonished that the “split between faith… and daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Id.) The dichotomy of two lives, one of faith and one of citizenship, insulated from one another is incompatible with Christian discipleship.

The role of the faithful in the suitable exercise of discipleship is crucial. First of all it is the laity who have the principal role in seeing that the “divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city.” (Doctrinal Note on Catholics in Public Life) While enjoying and exercising their appropriate expertise, the laity are properly reminded of the need to turn to the clergy for principled instruction and spiritual advice; however, it is ultimately the responsibility of the laity to combine their Christian wisdom, which is informed by the Church’s teaching authority, to implement and practice the divine law in the earthly city.

I have already noted some of the issues which the Council concluded violated human dignity. But the Council went on to specify several problems of “special urgency” requiring the attention of the laity. These include: marriage and the family which are of vital concern today; the proper development of culture, economic and social issues; the vocation of promoting the common good; and fostering peace and promoting the friendly community of nations. These vocations properly belong to every Catholic—man, woman, and child—since each bears a calling to follow Christ in this world and do the will of the Father through one’s baptism. It is the responsibility of each to continue the teaching which Jesus began and with which the Church, especially through its laity, is charged to continue in both word and deed. It is the laity who are well situated to embrace the duties of citizenship of both cities and transmit God’s law and truth to those responsible for directing civil society so that it achieves and maintains the common good. This is of special concern to those of us in the teaching profession.

There may be critics and skeptics who caution against the propriety and legality of such an enterprise. They may argue that the disciple is prohibited from mandating religious doctrine on the secular community. In this regard, one is often reminded of the often recalled address given by Governor Mario Cuomo at Notre Dame University in September of 1984 entitled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” in which he raised and addressed the question of the relationship of his Catholic faith and his politics—are they separate or related? The Governor counseled against imposing views based on Catholic teachings on others which these citizens find unacceptable. He spoke of the “American-Catholic tradition of political realism” in which the Church has avoided settling into a “moral fundamentalism” mandating “total acceptance of its views.”

But that is not what the disciple is called to do. The disciple, as John Paul II judiciously explained, proposes to the community rather than imposes upon it. Governor Cuomo appears to have agreed with this transformative participation in public life in which the Catholic holds the duty not to coerce but to persuade. But as I will discuss later, there remain problems with other points that he made at Notre Dame. If indeed the United States is a pluralistic culture as many have noted, should we not as believers and non-believers, but citizens all, be aware of the universal obligation of citizen to contribute to the debates on issues big and small that fuel and sustain democracy? It makes little sense to argue that the person with no faith in his or her perspective on exercising the duties of citizenship is entitled to contribute to the democratic process but the person who approaches our life in common from a religious background is denied the same opportunity because of the myth of the wall of separation between Church and State. This leads to only certain rather than all sources contributing to our common life in a culture which claims to be pluralistic and diverse.

It is through reasoned discourse that the genuine contribution of the disciple can be made for the betterment and benefit of all rather than just some of humanity. It is the example of a way of life that is suitable for making the propositions consistent with God’s truth contained in the Church’s teachings. And, it is these teachings and the authority upon which they are based that serve as an antidote to the cynical and sinister in this world that God has given His disciples as one of our two cities. Archbishop Charles Chaput commented that regardless of one’s status as public official or citizen, Catholics share a duty of conforming their lives to the belief they profess and to do something about this is a public fashion if the common good is to be a goal of society. He properly acknowledged that, “All law is the imposition of somebody’s beliefs on somebody else. That’s exactly the reason we have debates and elections, and Congress—to turn the struggle of ideas and moral convictions into laws that guide our common life.”

The wisdom and teachings from the Pastoral Constitution must be complemented by a second conciliar text, the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem. At the outset, the objective of this text was to support intensification of the apostolic activity of the laity who possess and exercise a proper and indispensable role in the Church’s mission in the world—a role necessitating zeal and intensification. A major objective of this apostolic activity is the need to address the serious errors of the contemporary world that undermine “the foundations of religion, the moral order, and human society itself.” (AA, N. 6) Of special concern to the laity are vocations involving Christian married life, the family, and the influence of Christians (especially the young—and whom do the young encounter outside of their homes on a regular basis?) on culture and society. Regardless of the activity, the laity are called to build up the Church and to sanctify the world. (Id., N. 16) Keeping in mind the earlier work of Catholic Action, the Council viewed that the laity, who must maintain a proper relationship with Church authorities, would pursue a wide variety of apostolic activities providing reinforcement for the transcendent and objective moral order in the world. (Id., N. 20) Of course, it is important to note that no one could claim the use of the modifier “Catholic” unless it had obtained the consent of the appropriate and lawful authority in the Church. (Id., N. 24) In this context, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in May of 2000 declaring that the pro-abortion group which calls itself “Catholics for Choice” [formerly CFFC] is not a Catholic organization.

What is envisaged in the text on the role of the laity is a vital partnership in which the ecclesiastical hierarchy teaches and authentically interprets the moral principles to be addressed and advanced by the laity in the temporal sphere. (Id., N. 24) Otherwise, any speaker addressing the temporal sphere could advance his or her or its views, as does the Catholics for Choice, in the name of the Catholic Church, but to do so would be falsehood and lead to confusion amongst not only the laity but the citizenry at large. Any speaker who suggests that he or she is offering a Catholic perspective to a debate but whose views do not accord to the Church’s teachings and positions is offering erroneous testimony and falsehood. No wonder why Thomas More encouraged Richard Rich to be a teacher! A teacher who is also committed to his or her discipleship works in a particular vineyard which will be the subject matter of the second installment that will follow in a few days.

 

RJA sj

Friday, December 17, 2010

Using the name "Catholic"

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Following up to Richard M's post on the use of the name "Catholic," an element of the Decree on the Laity (N. 24) may well have a significant bearing:

Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy. No project, however, may claim the name "Catholic" unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority.

 

RJA sj

 

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The 2011 World Day of Peace Message—Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

This morning the Holy See released Pope Benedict’s 2011 World Day of Peace Message which develops the theme of “Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.” The full text in English is available here. This text should be of great interest to contributors to and to readers of the Mirror of Justice. As will become obvious upon reading the text, anyone can see that the issue of religious freedom, often discussed and debated within the context of this web site, is not an issue restricted to an American audience. The matter is of universal concern.

The message begins with a reminder of the cost of religious freedom in the context of the lethal attack on October 31 at the Syro-Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad. To underscore the significance of this brutality and how it defies religious liberty, the Holy Father offered these words: “It is painful to think that in some areas of the world it is impossible to profess one’s religion freely except at the risk of life and personal liberty.” He reminds all that religious freedom is a constitutive expression of something that is unique about the human person, i.e., the desire to direct one’s self to God.

Other important points made by the Holy Father include these:

1. Related to his opening remark is the point that the right to religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person—a theme that has long been a part of Catholic social doctrine.

2. Religious freedom provides the foundation for that moral freedom which enables the person to exercise rights wisely while at the same time acknowledging corresponding responsibilities to others.

3. The family is the first “school” where the importance of religious freedom through religious education first takes place.

4. Religious freedom and the responsibilities that attend to it provide for the formation of the good citizen who exercises citizenship that advances a sound political and juridical culture.

5. Religious freedom, as Pope Paul VI reminded the leaders of the world’s governments at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, must retain its vital public dimension. The freedom is meaningless if it cannot be exercised in community and in public.

6. Religious freedom can never be a masquerade for advancing political agendas that undermine the foundation of just civil societies. Authentic religious freedom is a close relative of the search for the transcendent and objective moral order, which is Truth (God’s) itself.

7. Genuine expressions of justice and civility embrace authentic religious freedom.

8. Dialogue between religious and civil societies is beneficial and is an expression of the two citizenships which many people exercise.

9. Authentic religious freedom promotes moral truth in national and international political institutions thereby enhancing understanding and dispelling those narrow prejudices that foster hostility and contradict the durability of a just and lasting peace.

As our predecessor in faith Saint Augustine said, tolle lege, take up and read!

 

RJA sj

 

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Rob Vischer’s Political, Not Partisan—The Church in the Public Square

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

Congratulations to Rob in publishing his thoughtful essay entitled Political, Not Partisan—The Church in the Public Square in the December 3 issue of Commonweal magazine! I am not able to upload here his article for interested readers of the Mirror of Justice, but if anyone could help with this task, I would be most grateful.

Rob’s commentary investigates generally the capacity of the Church through the efforts of her bishops to engage the public regarding policies, election year issues, and elections themselves. He focuses his analysis on the distribution of the DVD produced and distributed by Archbishop John Nienstedt. Knowing that the archbishop and the Church have received criticism in recent years for the Church’s participation in the public square on issues before the public, Rob crafts four understandings of the meaning of the word “political.” Moreover, Rob’s definitions demonstrate that there is or should be no prohibition of the Church engaging public policy matters that may be considered “political” under U.S. law with the exception of participating or intervening “in... any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” In addition, Rob acknowledges that this prohibition should not stop the Church or the bishops from speaking on matters of public interest knowing that one candidate may be in favor of one side of the matter and another opposed. I largely agree with him on his well developed points.

But, I would like to add a few further thoughts on this important subject raised and ably discussed by Rob.

The first is this: should discussion about political issues by the Church and her members be a legitimate objective or enterprise for them to pursue or to engage? Generally, I would say yes, and firstly because the term political is quite broad and has multiple meanings, and we must be clear about which meaning do we have in mind. The term can mean, for example, belonging to or concerned with the form, organization, and administration of the state and with the regulation of other states. [All definitions upon which I rely here in this posting are derived from the Oxford English Dictionary.] It can also mean relating to or forming a part of the civil administration of society. It can also mean having an organized form or structure of the government or society. Further, it can apply to those who are concerned with public life and the authority of the state. In all these contexts, all members of society and all its institutions, including the Church and her members, have legitimate interests that can be and should be properly exercised in the political realm as these definitions apply.

However, if the meaning in mind refers to the taking sides with or promoting or following (or the opposite of these) a party line in a political/public debate rather than focusing on the issues and proposing a position on the issues themselves or the general debate itself, then the Church or its bishops could be deemed “political” in a problematic manner. I think that Rob and I agree on this as his, Rob’s, discussion of Archbishop Nienstedt’s recent activity in making and distributing the DVD on the marriage question was developed by Rob. Of course, could there not be exceptions to this kind of activity in certain kinds of political environments? I think so, but those exceptions could be in very dangerous circumstances such as those surrounding another bishop, i.e., Clemens August von Galen of Germany in the 1930s and ’40s. In this regard, one might also take stock of the careful words of Bishop John Fisher in Rochester, England in the early 16th century. But recognizing that there could be legitimate exceptions to the Church being political in the context of taking or not taking sides with particular party lines, I think that is why our Federal tax law states what it does. Should the Church be partisan with a party? I think this is ill-advised. Should or can the Church be partisan on the issues themselves which political parties and candidates take sides? I think this is not only permissible but often necessary if the voice of the natural moral law is to be heard on important matters dealing with the res publicae.

Thus, the Church and her bishops and her members have as much right to participate in the political life of society, as I have outlined the term’s various definitions, as much as any other member of society.

The second topic I address today is to comment briefly on Rob’s judicious and important discussion of three positive qualities for which the Church “should strive whenever it works to influence the voting decisions of citizens.” (Italics in Rob’s original text) These positive qualities are: coherence, compassion, and commitment to dialogue. I agree with these principles and the basic manner in which Rob skillfully presents them, but the comment I would add is to his suggestion that comes from previous discussions here at the Mirror of Justice concerning the suicides of gay and lesbian teenagers. It appears that in the minds of some, Archbishop Nienstedt’s DVD, or at least the timing of its release and distribution, displayed little compassion or disregarded compassion entirely. I think we all have to keep in mind that the archbishop’s words did not address the suicides of any group including gay and lesbian teens. I thus wonder if some folks would think that the archbishop should have refrained from sending the DVD because of the proximity of these teen suicides? If so, how could he have addressed the marriage issue in a timely fashion? He was not speaking of gay and lesbian teens or their lifestyles; rather, he was speaking about what is constitutive of marriage and how this important matter was a pressing issue on the Minnesota ballot. This important fact must be in the forefront of our discussion about compassion. If Archbishop Nienstedt is to be criticized for making the remarks on this issue, could we not also claim that the people of Minnesota and their public institutions should also be criticized for insensitivity for having this important matter on the ballot this fall?

 

RJA sj

 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Judge Posner on “Contraception and Catholicism”

Thanks to John Breen for his posting yesterday on Judge Posner’s web log entry on “Contraception and Catholicism.” I found many of the comments offered by third parties to the judge’s presentation illuminating, but I shall try my best to make a few relevant and different observations here.

First of all, the judge offers little evidence demonstrating that he really understands religion, in general, and Catholicism, in particular. I appreciate the fact that he often writes from a law and economics perspective, and I have read with great interest his important work on the relationship between these two disciplines. However, I think the judge is mistaken in making too much of a parallel between religious beliefs and “institutional strategies”, and between the Church and “a huge corporation.” A corporation’s investment is in the manufacturing of a product and the increase in wealth for the business. By contrast, the Church’s investment is not in “institutional strategies” of “a huge corporation” but in the salvation of souls and their union with God. He makes further references to competition by the Church and its confrontation with paganism, secularism, and other religions, but this is not what the Church is really about or what it really does. The Church is not in the competition business; it is in proclaiming the truth. Consequently, he misses the point of the Church’s true mission, i.e., the salvation of souls.

I realize that the judge is the author of a much heralded book entitled Sex and Reason. It is clear that his book offers personal perspectives on human sexuality and human sexual relations. Some of his book presentation views human sexual relationships through the lens of economic theory. While I will let others test the soundness of these theories, I think he is wrong in his concluding assertion made in his web log post: “Why sex plays such a large role in Catholic doctrine is a deep puzzle...”

Sex does play a role, and an important role at that, in the Church’s teachings, but to suggest as Judge Posner does that it plays “such a large role in Catholic doctrine” demonstrates his unfamiliarity with Catholic doctrine. For starters, we might consider looking at the role of sex in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Both volumes say a lot about sex, and while both texts’ treatments on sexual issues are important, it would be erroneous to conclude that their discussions about sex are disproportionate and at the core of every discussion. They are not. He fails to take stock of many other matter that the Catechism and the Compendium address and which do not concern sex, sexual practices, or sexual relations. To claim that sex plays “such a large role in Catholic doctrine” is, quite simply, hyperbole on his part. Once again, the advice of St. Augustine comes into the picture: tolle lege, take up and read—take up and read what the Church teaches and why she teaches.

If the judge thinks that sex plays “such a large role in Catholic doctrine” and that this “is a deep puzzle,” he might want to step back and consider our western society of today to see how sex plays a much larger role in contemporary culture and society than it does in the Church’s teachings. The Church, because of Her teaching authority that was entrusted by Christ, has the right to respond to what culture does to people and how cultural norms can endanger their salvation. So if it seems that the Church is addressing sex in a disproportional manner, Judge Posner might first pause to consider how society, in fact, views, treats, and celebrates sex perhaps much more than it should. If he thinks the Church is fixated on sex, he should really consider how sexual issues permeate and consume so much of contemporary society today through music, television, film, drama, and advertising. If he were to pursue such an investigation, he should see that the Church’s treatment of and attention to sex is proportionate but it is the culture’s treatment of it that is disproportional.

The final matter I’ll comment on here concerns his contention that,

The biggest problem that the Church faces in backing off its traditional condemnation of contraception is a potential loss of religious authority, which is no small matter in a hierarchical church. In 1930, responding to the Anglican Church’s rescission of its prohibition of contraception, Pope Pius VI  made an “infallible” declaration unequivocally reiterating the Catholic Church’s age-old prohibition of the practice, and his declaration was repeated by subsequent popes well into the 1990s. Were the Church now to repudiate that doctrine, it would undermine papal authority. Infallible papal pronouncements would be seen as tentative, revisable, like Supreme Court decisions, which have the force of precedents but can be and occasionally are overruled.

One concern with Judge Posner’s understanding of “the biggest problem that the Church faces” is the mistakes he makes about easily verifiable facts on the ecclesial issues that he addresses in this paragraph. For example, he makes reference to Pius VI who addressed contraception and related matters in 1930; but Pius VI was not pope in 1930. Pius VI was pope from 1775 to 1799. It also seems that the judge might be referring to the encyclical Casti Connubii, which was written by a much later Pope Pius, i.e., Pius XI in 1930. It is also possible that the judge may have been thinking about Paul VI’s encyclical of Humanae Vitae of 1968 if the judge were focusing primarily on the Roman numeral VI. In any case, the judge’s facts are skewed, and this does not help him succeed in proffering a convincing argument.   

The judge concludes by stating that, “The Pope [Benedict] may thus have opened Pandora’s Box.” If any box belonging to Pandora were opened, as Judge Posner states, it was not unbolted by Benedict XVI.

 

RJA sj

 

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive