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.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Benedict at Westminster

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Earlier today, the Holy Father met with British politicians, academics, business leaders, and members of the diplomatic corps at Westminster Hall—the site of the trial of St. Thomas More, the patron of those in political and state life. His address is here.

 

At the outset, the Pope acknowledged that this was no typical address given by a Roman Pontiff by indicating that he was “conscious of the privilege afforded me to speak to the British people and their representatives in Westminster Hall.” He quickly noted his appreciation of the contributions of the common law tradition and the vision of rights and responsibilities held by the state and the individual that include the separation of powers.

 

Not only was the setting historic, but so was the address. The first and only Briton he mentioned by name was Thomas More, and he focused on the “dilemma” faced by More and many others across human history: determining what is owed to Caesar and what is due God. In short, the address presented Pope Benedict’s—Peter’s—views on the authentic role of religious belief within public and political life.

 

In noting the role of moderation in the British manner, the Pope introduced the theme of virtue. Here when talking about “moderation,” he was raising the proper function of forbearance which enables the person exercising this virtue find the “genuine balance between the legitimate claims of government and the rights of those subject to it.” Forbearance is expected not only of the citizen but the state as well. This affords all the chance for succeeding in governing and participating in a pluralist society as Britain or the United States. Forbearance, moreover, arrests the appetite of anyone who chooses to assert more than should be asserted: in short, to find the crucial balance of when to claim the right that properly belongs to oneself and when to assume the responsibility that he or she also must shoulder if freedom of speech and of political affiliation, respect for the rule of law, and the equality of all citizens is to mean anything of enduring value. Here the Pope noted the valuable contribution of Catholic social thought—especially the notion of the common good—to the enterprise common to the res publica.

 

At this point, using Thomas More-at-trial-for-treason as the model, he probed the question of what is the common good. In essence, he explored the boundaries of where the state may not impose burdens on its citizens in the name of unity, national consensus, or something else. The state is not without assistance in charting this course because it has access to the great gift of civil discourse and the ethical conclusions to which genuine debate can lead in making the ordinary and the momentous decisions that affect the common good which must always take stock of the goods and the harms posed to the members of the polity. In his view, the formidable challenge to democracy is the circumstance where the only factor determining what are the “moral principles” that guide a people is simply “social consensus.” With that and nothing more, the treasure of democracy will be a fragile plaything easily manipulated by those who can form and un-form this consensus. As he asserted, “the ethical dimension of policy has far-reaching consequences that no government can afford to ignore.” Of course, the ability to appreciate and rely upon the natural moral law is an indispensable tool in identifying and relying upon the firm ethical principles that make nations and the international community just places.

 

In offering some concrete assistance to the British people—and anyone else listening—Benedict further stated:

 

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers—still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion—but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles... Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person... This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith—the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief—need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization. Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance.

 

 

Benedict had additional blunt words for those who, in the name of a “more perfect society, would advocate the silencing of the religious voice and perspective in public debate. Authentic religious freedom is the concern here. One example of his words: “there are those who argue—paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination—that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square.”

 

These words have poignant meaning in the western democracies of Europe, the United States, and Canada today where conscience protection of many good citizens is being treated in cavalier fashion by the state and by those whose influence on the state is designed to further, at best, problematic agendae in the masquerade of “human rights.” The Holy Father was on the mark exhorting his listeners—wherever they may be—that the perspectives of faithful believers and their well-formed consciences are vital to the success of the genuine debates that reinforce democracy, the rule of law, and the common good that undergird both. Silencing the religious perspective or relegating it to the confines of the private place is the hallmark not of democracy but of the totalitarian state.

 

The Pope was pleased to note some particular instances in which the British polity has contributed nobly to the progress of solidarity for those in need. Moreover, he indirectly expressed his gratitude on the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See. In concluding his address, Benedict invoked higher authority in saying that the “angels looking down on us from the magnificent ceiling of this ancient Hall remind us of the long tradition from which British Parliamentary democracy has evolved. They remind us that God is constantly watching over us to guide and protect us. And they summon us to acknowledge the vital contribution that religious belief has made and can continue to make to the life of the nation.”

 

I would encourage the members of our Mirror of Justice community to read the Holy Father’s address in full. It is a source of that authentic public spirit which can simultaneously further the City of Man and the City of God. Thomas More helped show the way, and Benedict is following in the path he trod.

 

RJA sj

 

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Fifty years later...

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Senator John F. Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. I have commented on this speech before, but this is the first and last time I’ll have the opportunity to offer several observations on the fiftieth anniversary of its delivery.

 

Much can be said about this speech after concluding a careful study of the text, and a little more can be gleaned in light of comparing the text to the recording of the address as delivered, which is available at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum site. One important fact surrounding this address is this: it was made by a politician seeking higher office for which the election was less than two months away and the outcome of the election was uncertain. While recognizing that the religious issue was an important matter before the voters (Can a Catholic be a loyal American office holder? Well, the fact that he had been a holder of elective office for some time would suggest an affirmative answer to this question.), Senator Kennedy was quick to call attention to the far more pressing issues of the day—e.g., economic issues, tense international relations, and the security of the nation with an imposing threat 90 miles off the coast of Florida which would come to a head in two years. Still, as a politician seeking office, he made a gamble which was this: telling not only the Protestant ministers gathered at the site where he was delivering his address but also the American people that he believed “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” I suspect that this statement was intended to placate those who believed without question that no one who claimed to be Catholic could also be a loyal citizen and, therefore, a competent and effective President.

 

But in noting this political assertion and the unsound Constitutional argument on which it is based and signifies, the politician-candidate John F. Kennedy understood well that he could not alienate his co-religionists with this gamble designed to win sufficient support from Protestants. So, perhaps with Saint Thomas More in mind, he concluded this address by pointing out that “if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same. But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith—nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”

 

John F. Kennedy, as candidate, did not want to alienate anyone who might be inclined to vote for him on any and all grounds. John F. Kennedy, as candidate, wanted, like his opponent Vice President Nixon, to win this election. As it turned out, Kennedy prevailed and was awarded the office for which he labored so hard to achieve.

 

Now we must fast forward a bit to a little over four months later on a bright but bitterly cold day in Washington, D.C. on the steps of the Capitol where the same John F. Kennedy stood but this time not as candidate for the office of the President of the United States but as the President of the United States duly elected by his fellow citizens—and the Electoral College. As President, John F. Kennedy opened his Inaugural Address by saluting his vice-president, the former Chief Executive and his vice-president, a past Chief Executive, the Chief Justice of the United States, his fellow citizens, and the Reverend Clergy, including the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cardinal Cushing. Now with the office of President securely his, there was no need for Kennedy to conceal Catholicism or at least its appearance in the public square. Thus, the new President in the second sentence of his inaugural address informed his audience before him and the audience around the world which listened or watched that he had “sworn before [them] and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters before.” Many recall his famous words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” But other words spoken by the new President demand our attention today.

 

Before his audience—wherever they were—heard this famous exhortation about service, President Kennedy declared in the first substantive paragraph of the address these words of significance: “The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” [Italics mine]

 

Would any American politician today invoke the name of God in such fashion? With very few exceptions, most would probably not—not out of lack of conviction but out of fear of the political consequences. Here we need to keep in mind that a few paragraphs later, the President relied on the prophet Isaiah’s command “to undo the heavy burdens... (and) let the oppressed go free.” But with the election a thing of the past and with the prospect of four and perhaps eight years of a presidency ahead of him, John F. Kennedy concluded his stirring inaugural address with these two sentences: “whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” These words could well be the assertion of any disciple of Jesus Christ who accepts the missionary charge: “you too go into my vineyard.”

 

While there may be other statements made by President Kennedy that put into context the address delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, one other speech delivered about a half year before his assassination needs to be considered here. On April 20, 1963 at an educational institution that was at that time unambiguously Catholic, President Kennedy, speaking at the school’s centennial observance, felt confident to speak as a Catholic before a diverse audience of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others of different faiths and some of no faith. The President took the occasion to comment on Pope John XXIII’s very recent encyclical letter Pacem in Terris. Here is what he had to say:

 

In its penetrating analysis of today’s great problems, of social welfare and human rights, of disarmament and international order and peace, that document surely shows that on the basis of one great faith and its traditions there can be developed counsel on public affairs that is of value to all men and women of good will. As a Catholic I am proud of it; and as an American I have learned from it. It only adds to the impact of this message that it closely matches notable expressions of conviction and aspiration from churchmen of other faiths... We are learning to talk the language of progress and peace across the barriers of sect and creed. [Italics mine]

 

Where the politician, where the President, and where the Catholic John F. Kennedy would take all the views in the future is unknown. But one thing is for certain: these were all his views. To take one alone would do disservice to his memory but, more importantly, to the republic which he served and to the Church to which he belonged.

 

RJA sj

 

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

A follow-up to incitement to religious hatred

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Thank you, Patrick, for your post on Mr. Damian Thompson’s report of the Peter Tatchell production that will soon air on British television. Mr. Thompson correctly takes to task those responsible for not only the production but also the distribution of a terribly flawed propaganda exploit that is being passed off as a documentary.

 

In the past I have been critical of some elements of the media because of what I saw in particular reporting as a disservice to the truth—not my truth, but the objective truth that surrounds us and to which our merciful God leads us. The Tatchell production is one further illustration of a concern that I share with others. So, what interest does Catholic legal theory have in this? One item quickly surfaces: if public discourse is vital to our society and the legal norms that it develops, do contributions such as the Tatchell production foster or suppress authentic dialogue vital to the democratic experiment? As John Courtney Murray reminded us a half century ago, “Civility dies with the death of dialogue.” The Tatchell documentary is counterproductive to dialogue. The harm to civility that welcomes the Church’s contribution to civil society may just be around the corner.

 

RJA sj

 

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The development of norms that promote the virtuous person

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Thanks to Rob for his posting entitled “The disappearing social stigma of STDs.” Like Rob, I am astounded by the attitudes that accept the practices regarding not only our children, but adults, and the surrounding culture in which we live.

 

Some might say that I am arguing from a particular moral—and perhaps antiquated—perspective. Sin involving sexual activity has been around for a long time. But something new is added to the mix when a major voice in contemporary culture offers rewards for that which physically and morally endangers every member of our society who lives the life that the culture exhorts.

 

Does the law have a role in any of this? More relevant to the project of this group, does Catholic legal theory have a part to play? My brief answer today to both of these questions is in the affirmative. Does it mean one could pursue what others might consider draconian, puritanical measures and have them incorporated into the civil law? Perhaps, but at this point I think something far more enduring and far more Christ-like is in order.

 

Rob concludes his post with a critical comment about the presence and wide acceptance of “increasingly permissive sexual norms.” Well, there it is: there are norms regarding the attitudes about casual sex amongst youth and adults alike. So, if there are permissive norms, could alternative norms be proposed as an antidote? It think so, and I suggest that this is where Catholic legal theory plays a role.

 

I submit that an alternative to increasingly permissive norms that accentuate the exaggerated autonomy of persons that can quickly lead to their harm, i.e., sexually transmitted diseases, have existed and still exist today. These norms are neither punitive nor draconian. Rather, on the other hand, they are designed to cultivate the virtuous person who can be a role model for others. I have been thinking hard about what are role models the contemporary culture presents to youth and adults alike. Are there any? It seems that the role model is the individual of any person—famous or otherwise—whose portrait can nicely fit into the “model” of the anti-hero who is restrained by nothing when it comes to sexual activity. But what if the society and its laws were to cultivate a counterpoint to this? Let’s say that there were social and legal norms cultivated by families, schools, cities, states, and the nation that substituted the model of exaggerated autonomy with that of the noble person who understands the significance of and practices forbearance or temperance, prudence, and fortitude regarding promiscuous sex. What would the existing popular culture say to that? Well, one thing is certain: it would have to acknowledge in some fashion that there is competition for what the contemporary culture can promote. And, I would say that this competition would be most welcome for us and for our posterity.

 

RJA sj

 

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Quid est academia Catholica?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

What is the university? What is the Catholic university? These questions are at the core of three of Rick’s recent postings (here, here, and here). While each of these postings raises different issues about the nature of the university which, I believe, claims to be Catholic and American, they draw on common themes. Rick’s discussions take place in the context of: the Boston College brochure entitled “The Catholic Intellectual Tradition: A Conversation at Boston College”; Randall Smith’s study of the implications of John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio for Catholic universities; and R. J. Snell’s examination of universities and the graciousness of being. Some might ask the question: what has all this got to do with Catholic legal theory? Like Rick (I think), it has a great deal to do with how those of us who teach law and who teach about what law is about (or should be about) in educational institutions that claim to be simultaneously the academia and Catholica.

 

From my perspective, the Boston College document presents important questions (but not all the answers) which frame my replies to the questions to which Rick has sought responses. At the outset, I realize that this document includes some thoughtful discussion beneficial to the enterprise of the Catholic academy; but, it also generates some problems. The Boston College text uses at least six times an important word—conversation—to explain the role of the Catholic intellectual tradition (which is not defined) in a university that identifies itself as Catholic, or is it catholic? Both the capitalized and lower case words are employed in the BC brochure. The document asserts that the “conversation” at stake is the use of the Catholic intellectual tradition as a guiding influence in the “complex, contemporary university” that claims to be “Jesuit” and Catholic, or at least has the heritage described by both these latter monikers. This “conversation” maintains the objective of searching for “truth, meaning, and justice.” Here it is prudent to take stock of what this text means by the “conversation” to which “All are invited.” The authors rely on one particular definition of this crucial term: they assert that to converse originally meant “to live together” or “to share a life.” While this is one basis of the term’s meaning, I suggest that this understanding is problematic in the context of explaining the Catholic intellectual tradition: I can live with others or share my life with others with little or no discourse that engages and proposes ideas. But is this what the university and the C/catholic tradition are about? I don’t think so. I believe that the Catholic university’s raison d’être involves engagement of ideas and propositions about why some ideas and propositions are correct and true but others are not. So, I think the better understanding of converse and, therefore, conversation, is the interchange of thoughts and ideas that lead to the recognition of what distinguishes truth from what is false.

 

So, what might some of the core thoughts and ideas be that are to be proposed in this endeavor? Let’s try these for starters: the nature and essence and purpose of the human person—quid est homo; the proper relation between and among persons—the common good; the relation between the person and one’s societies; the relation between the person and one’s surroundings; the relation between the person and God; and, the big question about what’s it all about—salvation. These are some of the crucial issues that are at the root of finding the truth (the Truth) about which the Boston College pamphlet briefly speaks.

 

I am encouraged by the fact that this document concludes by stating that, “The true Catholic university, then, is a community of teachers, scholars, students, and administrators sharing an intellectual journey and conversation in the pursuit of truth.” But how is “truth” understood by its authors? The answer is ambiguous insofar as the text also asserts that the Catholic university is challenged “to engage all people, cultures, and traditions in authentic conversation—conversation undertaken in the belief that by talking across traditions we can grow in shared understanding that opens all parties to the possibility of changing their views.” Well, if any view can be changed, I gather that would include the Catholic one. One of my principal concerns with elements of this document, then, is that the Catholic view may be viewed as flawed, at least in part. To justify this claim about shortcomings of the document I rely on two statements from the Boston College text. The first is that, “The Catholic intellectual tradition can thrive only with the participation of all who seek the truth, including those whose inquiry leads them to question whether the search reveals purpose, meaning, or God, or to conclude that it does not.” Well, what happens if the skeptical view prevails or that the doubter or atheist wins the discussion, the engagement, and the debate not by reasoned argument but by force of numbers and the votes that go along with these numbers? So much for the Catholic intellectual tradition!

 

The second problematic statement is this: “The Catholic tradition of inquiry includes...a resistance to reductionism and an openness to analogical imagination—a disposition to see things in terms of ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or.’” This seems to me to be analogous to the clarion call often proclaimed in the American and western academy today to pluralism and diversity. I say “yes” to this if the discussions about pluralism and diversity engage the minds of one and all so that there is an appreciation that, notwithstanding the diversity and pluralism, there are universal answers to the questions examined and debated in the context of quid est homo rather than answers which proclaim only difference and nothing beyond differentiation. The proclamation of inflated difference and the abandonment of the universal remove man from man and man from God. Civility and graciousness can then easily disappear, and the objective reasoning critical to the discourse, the debate, and the inquiry necessary for discovery of both truth and the Truth in the institution that claims to be Catholic becomes the sacrifice on the altar of the academy the revels in fragmentation.

 

RJA sj

 

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Steve is correct...

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

Steve is correct: the link to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops November 2006 Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper is not working. But not to be deterred from reading this important text, I did some trolling on the USCCB website—that must make me a fisher of documents—and found the PDF version of the text which is uploaded here [Download Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper].

 

But, I apparently take a different tack on how the bishops’ text on the Eucharist is to be understood. First of all, it is essential to understand the Eucharist is union with Christ. The bishops of a particular episcopal conference, i.e., the United States, in the proper exercise of their teaching authority as confirmed on several occasions at the Second Vatican Council (e.g., Lumen Gentium; Christus Dominus), note that there are occasions when members of the Church “should refrain from partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ” because this union with Christ is gravely compromised. Nevertheless, they acknowledge the need for being cautious when a judgment is made about whether or not another person should receive Holy Communion or not. Of course, when one is in mortal sin, his or her relation with God and the Church is compromised because of the failure to be in the necessary state of grace.

 

In the proper exercise of their teaching authority, the bishops present a non-exclusive list of some thoughts, acts, and omissions that constitute such compromises. Included are:

 

·     Believing in or honoring as divine anyone or anything other than the God of the Holy Scriptures

 

·     Swearing a false oath while invoking God as a witness

 

·     Failing to worship God by missing Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation without a serious reason, such as sickness or the absence of a priest

 

·     Acting in serious disobedience against proper authority; dishonoring one’s parents by neglecting them in their need and infirmity

 

·     Committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia; harboring deliberate hatred of others; sexual abuse of another, especially of a minor or vulnerable adult; physical or verbal abuse of others that causes grave physical or psychological harm

 

·     Engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage

 

·     Stealing in a gravely injurious way, such as robbery, burglary, serious fraud, or other immoral business practices

 

·     Speaking maliciously or slandering people in a way that seriously undermines their good name

 

 

·     Producing, marketing, or indulging in pornography

 

 

·     Engaging in envy that leads one to wish grave harm to someone else

 

Lots of compromises here as you can see, including some of those to which Steve refers. But being pastors, the bishops offer help to those not in a state of grace by reminding all that the Sacrament of Penance is available to remove the infirmity that impedes union with Christ. This sacrament is available not only to those who “knowingly and obstinately...reject the defined doctrines of the Church” but to all who compromise their status and are not in the necessary state of grace. I disagree with Steve’s argument that what is really being refused are the “teachings of the Bishops.” Rather, something else is being refused: it is a knowing and obstinate rejection of the defined doctrines of the Church including Her “definitive teaching on moral issues,” some of which have been quoted above. This is a crucial distinction. So, it is not failure to “accept the teachings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops” as Steve argues that constitutes the compromise; rather, it is the knowing and obstinate refusal of the Church’s teachings that the bishops, by their office and the authority conferred therein, are obliged to teach.

 

I am not sure I follow Steve’s point about the Nicene Creed. But, if he is suggesting that this is all that the bishops are obligated to teach, something is missing, i.e., Revelation and almost two thousand years of the Church’s teaching. In this latter context, the Apostle Paul had more than one occasion to address moral issues that many of our contemporary society dismiss as being solely confined to the tastes of the autonomous individual.

 

Finally, I am not sure if there exists today the “typical liberal Catholic” to which Steve refers or, for that matter, the “typical conservative Catholic” whom he does not mention. But if such persons do exist, I wonder which kind was Mr. Leander Perez; or Mrs. Bernard Gaillot; or Mr. Jackson Rickau...

 

RJA sj

 

 

Saturday, July 31, 2010

The Condition of following Christ

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

As today is the feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, I have been pondering over and praying about the condition of following Christ. As one who has also made his solemn profession of the four public vows in the Society, I think especially about the requirement to accept the request from the Roman Pontiff to serve the Church’s missions—wherever they may be, and they are everywhere these days. I also think about God and the question of the Second Council, quid est homo?

As an aid in all this, I have been reading Samuel Gregg’s recent book The Modern Papacy. He concludes this informative and wonderfully thought-provoking book with this:

The moment the papacy ceases to explore these matters [i.e., Does God exist? If so, what is his nature? Through what means, if any, can humans comprehend this higher reality? If God has revealed himself to humanity, how does this Revelation relate to the truths knowable through natural reason? Does this Revelation have any significance for the choices made by individuals and societies? If so, does this mean that man is essentially free or is humanity simply subject to the whims of an arbitrary Supreme Being? What does it mean to do good and avoid evil? Do categories such as good and evil possess their own concrete content? Or are they simply synonyms for useful and less useful, better and worse? Is death the end and oblivion, or the culmination of one beginning and the commencement of something new?] or begins, as Ratzinger writes, to present a vision of Jesus Christ as someone who “demands nothing, never scolds, who accepts everyone and everything, who no longer does anything but affirm us,” it will surely have nothing distinctive to say. The loss would be everyone’s.

A blessed feast to one and all. An now, back to pondering and praying—and a wee bit of celebration.

RJA sj

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Another look at authority and relativism

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

Over the past several weeks, a number of us have provided a variety of thoughts regarding the intersection of authority and relativism. In this regard, I just read with great interest the posting of Professor Maureen O’Connell of Fordham University [HERE] of her initial experience at the second biennial gathering of a group who self-identify as Catholic ethicists. The first gathering was convened in Padua two years ago, and the most recent one about which Professor O’Connell addresses was convened in Trent. The theme of this recent international colloquium which ran from July 24-27, 2010 was: “In the Currents of History: from Trent to the Future.”

 

While asserting that the conference underscored “the importance of tradition in moral theology,”  she made a reference to the “public scandal caused by the abuse of authority.” I would differ from her take on this: the cause of scandal in the Church today on all fronts is sinfulness and the attempts to rationalize or protect sin. Scandal, which follows the subscription to sin and sinfulness, is not caused by “the abuse of authority”; rather, it is caused by the succumbing to temptation that leads to sin and to the committing of sin. Moreover, it is often subjective rather than objective determination that promotes the sinful tendency that leads to sin which opens the door to scandal.

 

Professor O’Connell offers several statements which made me pause because she makes an appeal to subjectivity rather than objectivity. One of these statements deals with her appeal to the “democratization” of morality. Well, if we democratize morality, what easily follows is this: what might be sinful if done by one person may well turn out to be virtuous when performed by another because of subjective rather than objective evaluation that follows the “democratization” of morality. For example: it may be murder to you, but it is honor killing to me.

 

As I see it, the difficulty with the intensifying moral decision making in a subjective rather than an objective manner is to relativize the decision-making process of determining what is right and wrong not just for some but for all persons who may encounter the same issue. Moral truths evaporate in the face of subjectivity and, with that, harm the ability to distinguish between the right and the wrong. In essence, the subjective nature of moral reasoning and decision-making falls solely within the ambit of personal or group autonomy rather than universal standards formulated by objective reasoning. I also wonder if Professor O’Connell subscribes to the school of thought often encountered in some academic realms that questions whether there are universal moral norms but finds a convenient substitute for them in reliance on moral decision-making that synthesizes subjectivism, context, individual experiences, and the primacy of conscience (even if erroneously formed)?

 

Since she has suggested more postings on the Trent colloquium that just ended, I look forward to reading her further thoughts on these important matters.

 

RJA sj

 

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Relativism, Subjectivity, Conscience, and the Church

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

The subject line of this posting reflects issues that we at the Mirror of Justice have been discussing and will most likely continue to address for some time. Volumes could be written on these topics individually and collectively as each has some bearing on the others. I do not intend to offer these volumes today. Rather, I would like to comment briefly on a new contribution to these issues that emerges from a recent address given by Bishop Kevin Dowling, the ordinary of the diocese of Rustenburg, South Africa, who is known in part for his disagreements with and dissent from Church teachings on important issues. His talk, delivered on June 1 of this year to what has been described as a group of leading laity, has been discussed in weblogs and periodicals (such as HERE which includes the bishop’s address).

In his conclusion, Bishop Dowling relies on the authority of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger’s contribution to the discussion of conscience in Gaudium et Spes, N. 16, which appears in the Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II edited by Herbert Vorgrimler. Last November in a discussion with Rob,  I attempted to correct a misattribution to Fr. Ratziner in this posting. [HERE] In view of Bishop Dowling’s recent address that misuses the Ratzinger commentary of 1968, a renewal and an amplification of the correction is in order. First of all, here is what Bishop Dowling said last month:

 

What we should have, in my view, is a Church where the leadership recognises and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local Church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the Church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the believing, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk. The Church could be enriched as a result through a diversity which truly integrates socio-cultural values and insights into a living and developing faith, together with a discernment of how such diversity can promote unity in the Church – and not, therefore, require uniformity to be truly authentic. Diversity in living and praxis, as an expression of the principle of subsidiarity, has been taken away from the local Churches everywhere by the centralisation of decision-making at the level of the Vatican. In addition, orthodoxy is more and more identified with conservative opinions and outlook, with the corresponding judgement that what is perceived to be “liberal” is both suspect and not orthodox, and therefore to be rejected as a danger to the faith of the people. Is there a way forward? I have grappled with this question especially in the light of the apparent division of aspiration and vision in the Church. How do you reconcile such very different visions of Church, or models of Church? I do not have the answer, except that somewhere we must find an attitude of respect and reverence for difference and diversity as we search for a living unity in the Church; that people be allowed, indeed enabled, to find or create the type of community which is expressive of their faith and aspirations concerning their Christian and Catholic lives and engagement in Church and world….and which strives to hold in legitimate and constructive tension the uncertainties and ambiguities that all this will bring, trusting in the presence of the Holy Spirit. At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world……on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human Church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Father Josef Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II: “Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism”. (Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967). Bishop Kevin Dowling C.Ss.R. Cape Town, 1 June, 2010

 

Bishop Dowling correctly reproduces a portion of Father Ratzinger’s commentary to N. 16 of Gaudium et Spes; however, several things are omitted that are crucial to understanding what Fr. Ratzinger was saying and what he was not.

This first thing omitted in this quotation is that Ratzinger was presenting not personal thoughts but, rather, the views of Cardinal Newman. Interestingly, Bishop Dowling omits the next important sentence of Fr. Ratzinger, which states: “Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.” If Bishop Dowling intentionally or inadvertently was suggesting that the Church is totalitarian by teaching the universality of moral norms, Fr. Ratzinger’s own commentary dismisses the conclusion.

But, Fr. Ratzinger did not stop there. He pointed out various lacunae in the passage from Gaudium et Spes, N. 16, noting that the Council fathers did not address the matter of conscience in detail. As Ratzinger noted, “How conscience can err if God’s call is directly to be heard in it, is unexplained.” In essence, Ratzinger acknowledges that conscience can be ill formed, it can be mistaken in its judgment, and it can be in error. Conscience may merit protection (but as Fr. Ratzinger pointed out, the Council was evasive about the constitutive elements of this protection), but this does not ensure that it is true, that it is right, or that it is correct.

He went on to explain that the Council, unlike Bishop Dowling who expresses interest in “difference and diversity”, recognized that conscience is transcendent, and that the conscience of which it addressed possesses a “non-arbitrary character and objectivity.” That is why the Council was careful in stating that a person’s conscience is where the voice of God—not contemporary culture, not human intelligence, not human experience—“echoes in his depths.” Moreover, fidelity to this kind of conscience inevitably must lead to the “search for truth” which is God (“the objective norms of morality”) rather than contemporary culture, human intelligence, or human experience.

In this context, Fr. Ratzinger stated: “The [Council] fathers were obviously anxious (as, of course was repeatedly shown in the debate on religious freedom also) not to allow an ethics of conscience to be transformed into the domination of subjectivism, and not to canonize a limitless situation ethics under the guise of conscience.” Bishop Dowling is inclined to the subjective when he demonstrates his attraction to “particular socio-economic, cultural, liturgical, spiritual and other pastoral realities and needs” and his eschewing the universality of moral norms. By contrast, Fr. Ratzinger stated, “the conciliar text implies that obedience to conscience means an end to subjectivism, a turning aside from blind arbitrariness, and produces conformity with the objective norms of moral action. Conscience is made the principle of objectivity, in the conviction that careful attention to its claim discloses the fundamental common values of human existence.” These are points with which or from which Bishop Dowling differs or departs.

While Fr. Ratzinger addressed other important points as well as shortcomings of Gaudium et Spes’s discussion of conscience, Fr. Ratzinger offered this summation: “The doctrine of the binding force of an erroneous conscience in the form in which it is propounded nowadays, belongs entirely to the thought of modern times.” In short, Fr. Ratzinger’s commentary offers a way to correct the erroneous conscience and why the dignity it deserves is not without limit. I am grateful that Bishop Dowling took time to acknowledge Fr. Ratzinger’s commentary about conscience; however, I am saddened by the fact that the brief passage he quoted does not accurately portray Fr. Ratzinger’s view of the conciliar document and the essence of conscience that is vital to Christian belief.

 

RJA sj

Monday, July 5, 2010

Relativism and all that

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

 

 

I have been following with special interest the robust debate these past couple of days on the issue of relativism which my friends have been presenting here at the Mirror of Justice. Two items that help me think through the question of what is relativism and what does it mean to us who inhabit and participate in the res publicae are well presented in the following excerpts.

Upon the death of Pope John Paul II, the then Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Ratzinger, said this in his homily prior to the opening of the papal conclave:

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An “adult” faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth. We must develop this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith—only faith—that creates unity and is fulfilled in love.

In contrast there is the opinion of Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey wherein they asserted:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. These considerations begin our analysis of the woman’s interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one’s beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law.

It is clear that the choices we have regarding our individual lives and our lives in common in the res publicae are identified by these two passages from distinctive schools of thought. Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter give us the choice of relativism by proclaiming that the truth of the individual is what matters. But, in contrast, Cardinal Ratzinger gives some of us the better option.

 

RJA sj

 

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive