I am grateful to Steve for his earlier posting today. As is typical, he raises many profound and excellent issues meriting our discussion on Catholic legal theory and related matters here at the Mirror of Justice. I have taken my turns previously in addressing matters dealing with the visitations that the Leadership Conference on Women Religious. In part I return to this issue, but I do so knowing that Steve has thoughtfully put his finger on the overarching issue of authority.
In a purely legal context, we lawyers deal with authority all the time—administrators, legislators, and courts are all authorities whom we respect because of their office. This does not mean that we always agree with them in how they exercise their office and the decisions that they make in doing so, but we must still respect them because of the office they hold. As lawyers and citizens, we have the responsibility to respect them because of their position; nevertheless, we also have the right and duty to contest them when they have veered from the straight course of the law—in a civil context, the Constitution. When it comes to the Church, indeed there is also a straight course to follow for all of us—be we cleric, religious, or lay. The most recent course was that given us by the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of another constitution: The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church—Lumen Gentium.
The sisters who are complaining about the visitations have taken it on their own authority to complain. I frankly do not see them relying on the Dogmatic Constitution when they argue their case. But what about the sisters who were the ones who have asked for the visitations? I think it safe to say that they rely on the authority on which I rely: the Church and her Second Council which ended in 1965. And their arguments do rely on this authority of the Church, her Dogmatic Constitution, as they try to present their case. I do not think the complaining sisters, whom I hasten to add have been given ample coverage in America, Commonweal, and the National Catholic Reporter, have done the same. They rely on themselves; that is their authority, the authority of exaggerated autonomy, an autonomy that knows no proper, legitimate authority.
Steve argues that the complaining sisters have presumably built their complaint on the advice of some canon law lawyers who “told the women they were not required to answer all the questions. Religious, unlike bishops, priests and deacons, who make up the clergy, are not officially part of the church’s [sic] hierarchical structure.” I must disagree. They—meaning the complaining sisters and their canonists—are a part of the Church that is hierarchical. Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution, says so. But it also says so much more that is worth reading and rereading by all of us. Are we interested? It’s there for the reading—free of charge.
The women religious who are complainants, the women religious who asked for the visitations, the clergy, and the laity are all, all parts of the hierarchical Church. This is not by my saying so, or by my favorite canon law saying so, but by the Church through her Council, saying so. Again, read it: it’s all there. Each component of the Church has his/her/its proper role, but they all come together to form the Church, the Body of Christ, the People of God. To suggest otherwise is to ignore how the Church explained herself to her members and to the world in 1965. If the complaining sisters and their canon law lawyers do not understand this, I am sorry for them and I shall pray for them.
Steve raises an important issue when he points out that the visitations are part of a larger phenomenon. I agree. When any of us as members of the Church, of the Body of Christ, of the People of God betray that which has been entrusted to us, things can go very wrong. The sexual abuse scandal is one, but only one incident. True: we read about the failures of bishops in this context? Do we read about the failures of men and women religious who did the same thing as bishops with sinful members of their orders? Do we read about the psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers, and other counselors whom bishops and religious superiors relied upon in reassigning errant members of the clergy or of the religious community who allegedly abused members of the Church?
It is very easy to complain about and disrespect those who hold positions of authority when they err? Do we hold ourselves to the same standard when we err? When we sin? When we harm God and our neighbor by listening only to that little inner voice within us that has been compromised by temptation? It may well be that some bishops, clergy, and religious did just this: to rely on that inner voice. But surely so have many others. This fault is not restricted to those in Orders; it finds habitation across the human family. And until each of us can admit this, we will see the accusations that permeate the complaints made against our Holy Mother, the Church, continue ad nauseam.
I don’t have much to say about publications that rely on the moniker “Catholic” tonight. But I will mention something about educational institutions that also rely on this important modifier. When good priests, religious, and laity who respect the Church’s authority find it either difficult or impossible to obtain a position in a “Catholic” educational institution because of their fidelity, there is no need for any ecclesiastical authority to remove the name “Catholic” from the institution. The institution—through its human membership—has already done that. I rely here on a recent case in point: the institution shall remain nameless, but it was founded by my religious order. Last year I made inquiries about joining its faculty of law. There seemed to be interest regarding my candidacy, and I was encouraged by the sentiments expressed to me. But then with the difficulties emerging from the economy were taking their effect across the academy, I was informed that it was not likely that there would be any hiring for this year. I accepted this explanation. But, in retrospect, I think I was fooled. I was more than surprised when I discovered that, notwithstanding the representation made to me by the institution founded by my order, six new faculty were in fact hired for this current school year. But previouslyl I was told that it was doubtful that there would be any hiring, period, because of economic exigencies. Fool me once: shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
I don’t think the Church should be fooled anymore.
Let me conclude this posting with a comment on Steve’s final point about his notion that the points he raised have “relevance for the Vatican investigation of the women religious.” I must insist here that we need to acknowledge that it was women religious who asked for the visitations in the first place. It was not imposed; it was, contrary to the complaining women religious whose views get ample treatment in the press, asked for by women religious who have had enough of their fellow sisters who impose on them. And what do they impose? It seems that the imposition is that which is not consonant with the explication of the Church, religious life, holiness, fidelity, etc. presented by the Second Council a mere forty-five years ago in the Church’s Dogmatic Constitution—an authority to which all, not just some, Catholics are called to respect and follow with the fidelity of the free will that prompts them to claim the name “Catholic.”
RJA sj
Sunday, November 22, 2009
I begin by thanking Robby George and Michael Perry for their spirited discussion on the matter of same-sex relations.
Tonight I respond to Michael’s argument that there is a “principal magisterial argument against...”
No, Michael, there is a whole fabric of argument that must be taken into consideration. I have been criticized for trying to say too much in my postings here at the Mirror of Justice, so tonight I’ll offer a number of non-exclusive points to counter Michael’s suggestion that there is only one principal magisterial argument. Let me counter with some of them:
If same-sex unions, whatever they are called [i.e., marriage, relation, etc.] are the norm or are normative, and they are not only the paradigm but also the definition of marital relations, from where will future generations of our species come?
If the answer is: existing and developing human reproductive technologies, then, what will become of the “spare” embryos? Will they be preserved indefinitely? Will some be discarded? Will no account be given to them? Who will bear them? Will they be entrusted to some artificial laboratory substitute for a womb? Who will claim them? Will there be an obligation/responsibility to claim them? I have more questions on this issue, but these will suffice for the time being.
The juridical argument for these same-sex relations was grounded in privacy. But now that the “privacy right” has been established, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, In re Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, why is it necessary to make the issue of “privacy” a public matter? The Church has an answer, and it is not the one suggested by those upon whom Michael relies in his contention.
Michael further relies on the work of Sister Margaret Farley, but I look forward to the Mirror of Justice discussion that has been long-awaiting regarding her work to which Michael refers. Let it suffice for me to suggest for the time being that Margaret Farley has many interesting views on “sexual ethics”, but, they are most problematic, to say the least. However, let me lift just one of her other quotations from the work that Michael relies upon to put my concern into perspective: “despite what I have said about official positions in the Roman Catholic church [sic], there are changes that should not be underestimated. Although homosexual genital actions are still judged to be intrinsically disordered, and hence ‘objectively’ immoral, they can be ‘subjectively’ moral depending on the state of mind and intentions of an individual person.” To borrow from Sister Farley, this is the tip of her “iceberg”. But much more lurks below the depths of the attraction of her superficial rationalization. I wonder what she is trying to make absolute? I think I know especially after having re-read her book to which Michael kindly directs our attention.
I also know Michael views the issue as a matter of justice. So does Sister Farley. Equality is key to how people are treated and what justice demands, so I must ask the fundamental question: how is the same-sex relation the precise equal of the heterosexual one? I, for one, do not think that it can be. See here [Download Equality and Same Sex Marriage] for my fuller response to this matter.
One issue that advocates for same-sex unions dismiss but do not counter is the complementarity-of-the-sexes question. Michael has not addressed this, but it is clear that this is an important argument to the Church’s teachings. I, for one, would like to hear what Michael has to say about this issue involving complementarity and how it is absence from same-sex relations.
For the time being, I present one more problem for Michael to consider which his last posting has teased from me. If same-sex and opposite-sex unions are the “same,” what is to prevent advocates for other kinds of unions that may involve multiple members from relying on the argument he presents? If same-sex unions are “found” to be equal, won’t it be long before advocates for other unions will be presenting their claims with “convincing” argument?
RJA sj
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I sincerely thank Steve Shiffrin for his post on Cardinal George’s opening address delivered at the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I appreciate Steve’s comments, but I find it necessary to provide a complement to his thoughts.
First of all, I think most folks would agree that no one likes to be policed, especially by someone whose authority to do so is limited. Most should also agree that the media and the academic community have a pretty free reign in doing what they do: in the case of the media, it has two functions—to provide information in an objective fashion and to provide commentary offering its perspective on pressing issues. The first involves the search for truth and making it available objectively; the second may include this approach, but it need not. Universities are engaged in learning, and I am confident that this ultimately means a search for the truth about whatever is being studied. Yet experience with both institutions—the media and the academy—demonstrates that the search for the truth does not always prevail amongst all their elements. It is more than possible that components of the media and elements of the academy (which has the responsibility of the cause of truth if it claims to be Catholic) can and do offer opinions which are not necessarily the truth about the matter on which the opinion is offered. But this does not arrest the possibility that the opinion is presented as the truth when, in fact, it is not. And, when others attempt to offer helpful correction to those in the media or the academy who confuse opinion with truth by suggesting that the former is the latter, the correction is not always welcome—the rectification is often viewed as undue or as pressure.
Both of these groups as I have briefly defined them have made efforts in the past (and, I suspect will continue to do so in the future) to correct the Church, especially her teachers—the bishops—on issues with which elements of the media or the academy conclude that the bishops are in need of correction. When papers and electronic media issue opinions that disagree with or attack a bishop or several bishops or the bishops’ conference, they are putting pressure on these teachers whose responsibility it is to teach. Their teaching may not be welcome, but if must be clear that it is not their episcopal job to offer only those teachings which the media or members of the academy approve. In these two contexts involving the media and the academy, their efforts I have described can become a form of policing that is of questionable authority. Is it within the competence of the media or the academy to undermine those whom the Church—our Church—has designated as its principal teachers? No.
This brings me to the second point I wish to make in response to Steve. The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium) has given us relatively recent instruction on the roles and responsibilities of the Church’s members—the People of God, the Body of Christ—be they clerical, lay, or religious. Moreover, the principles and norms set forth by the Council have been further elaborated in more recent years, e.g., statements by the Pontifical Council for Social Communication or magisterial teachings such as John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor, Fides et Ratio and Ex Corde Ecclesiae. As a bishop and as the Vicar of Christ, John Paul’s views were not just one set of views among other sets of opinions (of the media or members of the academy) but authoritative positions that those who abide by the Council are obliged to follow. It would be imprudent to think that one could still be Catholic but not have to take to heart what the magisterium teaches. I must add here that bishops act in conjunction with the pope as the Council has instructed us. This brings me to a third point.
What could the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ, what could any bishop, what could a conference of bishops do about those who claim to be Catholic but do not follow the Church’s teachings? It remains within the competence of the Church, through her teachers, to remove the title “Catholic” from the institution that wrongfully claims it. This does not require stripping the name from the building, or the teaching post, or the periodical. It will suffice to declare clearly and authoritatively that something that or someone who employs the modifier “Catholic” does so erroneously and, in fact, is not. An example would be the declarations made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that Frances Kissling’s Catholics for a Free Choice (now Catholics for Choice) was and is, in fact, not Catholic in spite of Ms. Kissling’s using the word “Catholic” to describe her organization. The organization persists in using the term “Catholic”; but those with the proper competence to declare so have stated emphatically that it is not.
Perhaps Steve or others would like to comment on this further, but let me conclude with this one thought from John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor to which I have already made reference:
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”. (N 113)
I, for one, do not think that Cardinal George is going to take actions against elements of the media or the academy to make them “knuckle under.” However, I do think that there is evidence suggesting that elements of society that consider themselves Catholic have, on occasion, unduly and improperly attempted to put pressure on the Church’s teachers. To borrow from John Courtney Murray, S.J., the question is not whether the Church is safe for the media and the academy (she is); the question, rather, is whether the media and the academy are safe for the Church (and this sometimes is unclear).
RJA sj
