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.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Gratitude to Michael Perry

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

A few days ago, Michael P. posted best wishes to me and to the Society of Jesus as the Thirty-fifth General Congregation of the order was about to convene in Rome. I am grateful to Michael for his wishes and for the prayers of all those who have the interests of the Society in mind.

This morning the General Congregation convened, and the first matter at hand was the celebration of Mass at which His Eminence Franc Cardinal Rodé, C.M., Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Cardinal is no stranger to religious orders in that he himself is a member of the Congregation for Missions, aka the Vincentians.

Cardinal Rodé began his homily by pointing out the significance of the election of the new Superior General who will replace Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach. Under the law of the Society, Superiors General serve for life; however, Fr. Kolvenbach has requested and was granted a dispensation permitting him to step down.

The Cardinal then offered this observation:

This Congregation also gathers together to treat important and very difficult matters which touch all members of the Society, such as the direction which the Society is presently taking. The themes upon which the General Congregation will reflect have to do with basic elements for the life of the Society. Certainly you will deal with the identity of today’s Jesuit, on the meaning and value of the vow of obedience to the Holy Father which has always defined your religious family, the mission of the Society in the context of globalization and marginalization, community life, apostolic obedience, vocation recruitment and other important themes.

The Cardinal also noted that the impact of the Society’s work extends beyond its own territory. As he said,

It is not only for your own Jesuit brothers that you provide a religious and apostolic formation. There are many institutes of Consecrated Life who, following an Ignatian spirituality, pay attention to your choices; there are many future priests in your Colleges and Universities who are preparing for their ministry. There are many peoples from both within and outside the Church who frequent your centers of learning seeking a response to the challenges which science, technology and globalization pose to humanity, to the Church, and to the faith, with the hope of receiving a formation which will make it possible for them to construct a world of truth and freedom, of justice and peace. Your work must be eminently apostolic with a universal human, ecclesial and evangelical fullness.  It must always be carried out in the light of your Charism, in such a way that the growing participation of laity in your activities does not obscure your identity but rather enriches it with the collaboration of those who, coming from other cultures, share your style and your objectives.

The Cardinal referred to himself as “a brother who is following your works with great interest and expectation…” He then indicated that he wished to share his “joys and hopes” and his “sorrows and anguish” regarding apostolic service through religious life. In this context, he said of the Society,

The authenticity of religious life is characterized by the following of Christ and by the exclusive consecration to Him and to his Kingdom through the profession of the evangelical counsels. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council teaches that “this consecration will be the more perfect, in as much as the indissoluble bond of the union of Christ and His bride, the Church, is represented by firm and more stable bonds” (Lumen Gentium, N. 44) Consecration to service to Christ cannot be separated from consecration  to service to the Church. Ignatius and his first companions considered it thus when they wrote the Formula of your Institute in which the essence of your charism is spelled out: “To serve the Lord and his Spouse the Church under the Roman Pontiff” (Julius III, Formula I).  It is with sorrow and anxiety that I see that the sentire cum ecclesia of which your founder frequently spoke is diminishing even in some members of religious families. The Church is waiting for a light from you to restore the sensus Ecclesiae.

The Cardinal was not reticent to express melancholy about a sentiment present today amongst some members of religious institutes:

With sadness and anxiety I also see a growing distancing from the Hierarchy. The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service “under the Roman Pontiff” does not allow for this separation. In the Constitutions which he left you, Ignatius wanted to truly shape your mind and in the book of the [Spiritual] Exercises (n 353) he wrote “we must always keep our mind prepared and quick to obey the true Spouse of Christ and our Holy Mother, the Hierarchical Church”. Religious obedience can be understood only as obedience in love. The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church. Your XXXIII Congregation once again took up this characteristic of obedience declaring that “the Society reaffirms in a spirit of faith the traditional bond of love and of service which unites it to the Roman Pontiff.”

But he noted that there is an antidote to this problematic sentiment—apostolic zeal based on fidelity to scripture and tradition. As he exhorted the Congregation,

Times have changed and the Church must today confront new and urgent necessities, I will mention one, which in my judgment is urgent today and is at the same time complex and I propose it for your consideration.  It is the need to present to the faithful and to the world the authentic truth revealed in Scripture and Tradition. The doctrinal diversity of those who at all levels, by vocation and mission are called to announce the Kingdom of truth and love, disorients the faithful and leads to a relativism without limits. There is one truth, even though it can always be more deeply known. It is the “living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (Dei Verbum, N. 10) which is the voucher for revealed truth. The exegetes and theological scholars are involved in working together “under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings” (Dei Verbum, N. 23). Through your long and solid formation, your centers of research, your teaching in the philosophical-theological-biblical fields you are in a privileged position to carry out this difficult mission. Carry it out with study and in-depth examination, carry it out with humility, carry it out with faith in the Church, carry it out with love for the Church.

Cardinal Rodé also addressed the duties associated with evangelization, a topic I recently addressed in several of my December postings but specifically including this one [HERE]. He emphasized his concerns for the growing separation between faith and culture, which impedes evangelization. He pointed out that the Society has been well disposed in the past to breach this partition. As he stated,

A culture immersed with a true Christian spirit is an instrument which fosters the spreading of the Gospel, faith in God the Creator of the heavens and of the earth. The Tradition of the Society, from the first beginnings of the Roman College always placed itself at the crossroads between Church and society, between faith and culture, between religion and secularism. Recover these avant-garde positions which are so necessary to transmit the eternal truth to today’s world, in today’s language. Do not abandon this challenge. We know the task is difficult, uncomfortable and risky, and at times little appreciated and even misunderstood, but it is a necessary task for the Church. The apostolic tasks demanded of you by the Church are many and very diverse, but all have a common denominator: the instrument which carries them out, according to an Ignatian phrase must be an instrument united to God. It is the Ignatian echo to the Gospel proclaimed today: I am the vine, you are the branches. He who remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit (John, 15:5).

He ended his homily with this exhortation: “The Lord has chosen you to go and bear fruit, fruit that lasts. Go, bear fruit confident that ‘all that you ask the Father in my name, He will give you.’ (John, 15:16).” I am confident that many Jesuits will take the Prefect’s exhortation to heart and mind and translate it into their individual and corporate apostolic zeal. I pray that God grant me the grace to join them in this work to which the Society has been called. Again, I thank Michael for his kind expression of prayerful best wishes.    RJA sj

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Catholic Legal Theory and life and death

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Tom Berg’s question regarding the propriety or not of capital punishment in grave, i.e., heinous, cases not involving homicide has prompted me to revisit what Catholic teaching has to offer the civil law regarding life and death. I have already offered some personal views on capital punishment that I believe are consistent with Catholic teachings on the matter. [HERE]

But Tom’s posting has raised some other important questions for me. The circle around the issue of what does Catholic legal theory have to say, what could it say, about life and death where heinous crimes are not the central issue? I am of the view that Catholic legal theory, for it to be true to Catholic teaching, must have considered the soteriological (salvation) and eschatological (end times) matters that the legal subject under investigation may be or is related. For example, when we discuss abortion, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. When we discuss war, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. When we are discussing embryonic stem cell research, we are talking about human beings intentionally ending prematurely human life. This list is not exhaustive, but it presents a number of contemporary issues that we have been recently addressing at Mirror of Justice.

I am not offering any specific examination of these issues today; however, I am proposing that they and other important legal questions that involve the life and death of fellow human beings and that are under consideration by Catholic legal theorists must take into account how the law will affect the eternal salvation of those involved in the matter along with the final destiny of judgment by and union with God. At this point I am not arguing that all legal questions pose a need for this kind of consideration. But where the legal subject involves human acceleration of the death or end of the earthly life of any human, Catholic legal theory needs to take stock of the eschatological and soteriological dimensions of all involved in the matter. I wonder what others may think about my perspective.       RJA sj

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

An insight into Catholic Legal Theory

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Over the past two and one half years other MOJ contributors and I have addressed questions dealing with conscience, the authority of the state, the role of the law in society, and the proper place of religion in public life. I tend to think that our discussions and debate on these matters will continue. Earlier today I was reading a series of papers delivered at the annual meeting of the Thomas More Society in London and published in 1948. One of the papers given was written by the English Dominican Hilary J. Carpenter entitled “Law and Conscience.” As one who has criticized in the past the “mystery of life” passage and its exaggerated notion of autonomy and liberty authored by Justice Kennedy in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, e.g., HERE and HERE, I found Fr. Carpenter’s words prophetic about the future of law and how Catholic Legal Theory can provide relief to its troubled future which some of us have recognized. In his opening paragraph authored in the late 1940s, Carpenter had this to say:

The age in which we live presents a rapidly growing cleavage between law and conscience; and this cleavage is resulting inevitably in the destruction of both. It is due almost entirely to the subjectivism which has been steadily graining ground for the last four hundred years. Once private judgment is admitted as a principle in the conduct of human affairs the objective norms of human action cease to function as such, and both conscience and law are deprived of their vitality. As early as the sixteenth century an incipient subjectivism made its appearance in philosophy as well as in religion; it is possible, indeed, that the effort to segregate philosophy from religion was the source of the whole evil. For when religion has ceased to provide a philosophy of life it is no longer true religion, and its sanctions lose their compelling force. Moreover, philosophy unallied to religion is a ship without rudder; it follows the caprice of any intellectual wind that blows. The purpose and the very content of human nature is lost sight of; law becomes an unstable shadow of its real self; and conscience, left to stand alone, is not more than a blind guide leading the blind.

I find it extraordinarily ironic that within the past few days (as I commented on in a recent posting HERE) that an English parliamentary committee chair has this dim view of religion in public life: “It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith.” If Fr. Carpenter is correct in his view (and I think he is) that the separation of religion from public life will make the ship of state rudderless, it will be interesting to see in which direction Parliament travels if this MP's view prevails. It is also important to keep in mind that Fr. Carpenter did not restrict his counsel to the British Parliament.      RJA sj

Monday, December 31, 2007

“MPs challenge ‘doctrinaire’ bishops”

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Yesterday’s British press contained an article entitled “MPs challenge ‘doctrinaire’ bishops”—it was subtitled “Catholic church under fire for promoting a hard line on ‘immoral’ teaching in schools.” [HERE] Over the past several years, a number of MOJ contributors have addressed public policy developments in primary and secondary education in public schools as well as private schools that must comply with certain educational standards established by the state. Of course, the state’s efforts to regulate moral education that private Catholic schools provide raise fundamental questions about libertas ecclesiae. In the United States, legislative and judicial challenges have arisen over the last couple of years which have pressured Catholic schools or threatened pressure if compliance with programs that conflict with Catholic moral teachings is not adopted to the satisfaction of the state—and those interests to which the state is willing to advance. This attached article from the British press indicates that similar issues are surfacing in England.

It appears from this report that a number of Catholic bishops are supportive of rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding the rights of parents and families concerning the education of their children about moral and religious matters. However, these important guarantees seem to have little effect on some officials in England.

Two points found in the article merit attention today. The first is the statement attributed to the MP who chairs a cross-party committee on children, schools, and families. He was quoted by the press as saying, “It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers’ money after all.” I think the bishops aren’t “indoctrinating,” but they are “teaching” and this is a major responsibility that they shoulder. Moreover, the bishops’ actions seem to be quite compatible with juridical protection of religious liberty, but some MPs object to this; after all, according to them, people should not be “that serious about their faith.”

The second point I’ll raise today on this matter involves the symbiotic relation between some secularists and Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC). It comes as no surprise that the National Secularist Society’s protest on the bishops’ stand in this matter is “supported” by “research” collected from a CFFC “poll.” But of course, what the CFFC does to advance its most curious agendae is not viewed as indoctrination, and I am sure there are those who consider their work splendidly moral.      RJA sj

Thursday, December 27, 2007

The teaching of Christian Ethics

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Several of us have been discussing the teaching of Christian Ethics in a Catholic context over the past several days. In particular, I would like to thank our two Michaels, i.e., Perry and Scaperlanda, for providing spirited catalysts to these exchanges. As I mentioned previously, I do not share Michael P.’s enthusiasm for Sr. Margaret Farley’s take on important issues of the day. Like Michael P., I realize she is “dissenting,” but I do not see how her positions or arguments in support thereof are “compelling.” I would like to offer readers some insight into the position I stake and the ground on which I rely.

Like Sr. Farley, I, too, have taught Christian Ethics, but unlike her, I did not teach at a prestigious Ivy League university but a Pontifical university in Rome, which carried certain responsibilities for me regarding the content of my classes and the nature of my publications. Unlike Sr. Farley who held a prestigious endowed professorship in Christian ethics, I simply was an Ordinary Professor of a Pontifical faculty, meaning that I held the rank of full professor in an ecclesiastical faculty with the approval not only of the university and my religious order, the Society of Jesus, but also of the Congregation for Catholic Education. Considering my rights and responsibilities that I have freely accepted in my capacity as an Ordinary Professor, I am obliged to conduct myself, my teaching, my research, and my writing in accordance with norms of the Church. One of the most pertinent sources would be Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor (1993)—the Splendor of Truth, [HERE].

It is relevant to note that John Paul prefaced his writing of this encyclical noting that circumstances existed, which demonstrate “the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions, encountered even in Seminaries and in Faculties of Theology, with regard to questions of the greatest importance for the Church and for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life of society itself.” John Paul was also concerned about challenges to “the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone.” He concluded that it was necessary to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating “more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology” that were and are “being undermined by certain present day tendencies.” (NN. 4-5)

It was his intention to identify clearly “certain aspects of doctrine which are of crucial importance in facing what is certainly a genuine crisis, since the difficulties which it engenders have most serious implications for the moral life of the faithful and for communion in the Church.” John Paul specified that these “certain aspects” include areas contested by some who teach “Christian ethics”, e.g., abortion, marriage, and bioethical matters including research destructive of human life. (NN. 4, 13, 47-49, 80) The Pope’s further objective was to assist those entrusted with teaching moral theology and Christian ethics “with regard to which new tendencies and theories have developed.” John Paul emphasized the role of the Magisterium, fidelity to Jesus Christ, and continuity with the Church’s tradition, which are needed to help everyone in his “journey towards truth and freedom.” (N. 27, italics mine)

John Paul realized that certain tendencies had evolved in contemporary moral theology influenced by “the currents of subjectivism and individualism” that relied on “novel interpretations of the relationship of freedom to the moral law, human nature and conscience, and propose novel criteria for the moral evaluation of acts.” (N. 34) He also understood that these tendencies either minimized or denied the relation between an individual’s freedom and the truth taught by God and knowable by the human person. This discussion introduces the problem of an exaggerated and erroneous autonomy in which some moral theologians and ethicists have made an improper distinction between an ethical order based exclusively on human resources and limited to the material world and the order of God’s salvation. As the Pope asserted, “autonomy conceived in this way also involves the denial of a specific doctrinal competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium with regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called ‘human good’.” (N.37)

For John Paul II, it became necessary for the Church’s Magisterium to intervene in the sphere of faith and in the sphere of actions that bear moral concerns. It is the duty of all Catholics to be mindful of this (for we are all called to the task of salvation and evangelization), but it is the special responsibility of those who teach Christian ethics and moral theology. (N. 110) The person who exercises his or her life in a manner that conflicts with the Church, its Magisterium, and its teaching authority on these matters separates one’s self from right relation in the ecclesial communion. When this occurs, the Church has an obligation to warn the faithful of “the presence of possible errors, even merely implicit ones, when their consciences fail to acknowledge the correctness and the truth of the moral norms which the Magisterium teaches.” (Id.) The teacher of Christian ethics and moral theology has an obligation to teach with and in assent to the Magisterium’s teachings in the realms of dogma and morality in cooperation with the “hierarchical Magisterium.” (Id.)

As a man of the times, John Paul understood the importance and relevance of behavioral sciences in assisting the Church in its teaching responsibilities. However, he also understood the limitations of investigations that relied solely on the approach of behavioral science. As he indicated, “the relevance of the behavioral sciences for moral theology must always be measured against the primordial question: What is good or evil? What must be done to have eternal life?” (N. 111, italics are those of John Paul II) Should the teacher of Christian ethics and moral theology forget this, he or she has failed to comply with one’s professional and ecclesial responsibilities.

John Paul concludes his letter with these important points:

Teaching moral doctrine involves the conscious acceptance of these intellectual, spiritual and pastoral responsibilities. 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”.  (N. 113, italics are those of John Paul II)

I, for one, labor to be faithful to the Splendor of Truth and the need to keep together the questions, on the one hand, that address good and evil and those, on the other hand, that have to do with eternal life.     RJA sj

Monday, December 24, 2007

A blessed Christmas to all

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

May I put aside debate about developing Catholic Legal Theory for a moment to wish all contributors and readers of MOJ a blessed and happy Christmas. Come, let us adore him, the who came to save us all...     RJA sj

Margaret Farley’s Ethical Views

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

Both Michaels, Perry and Scaperlanda, have commented on Sister Margaret Farley’s work in the context of her recent award from the University of Louisville. Dr. Farley is the Gilbert L. Stark Professor of Christian Ethics, emerita at Yale. Like both Michaels, I, too, have read her recent book “Just Love.” I have also read recent articles she has authored on bioethics and medical ethics. Michael P. correctly identifies her work as “dissenting” from the Magisterium. However, I do not share his view that her perspective is compelling. I think that Michael S. is right on target in his critique. One of the announcements about Dr. Farley’s award mentions that she is a Catholic ethicist who grounds her work in “Christian theology and tradition.” It would be more accurate to say that she has abandoned this deposit; moreover, it is a misstatement to identify her as a Catholic ethicist. It is unfortunate that she has abandoned her fidelity to the Church, but this is a choice she has made and which she can, if she is so disposed, correct. But let us be clear, her work does not reflect Catholic thinking, it stands in Stark contrast to it.    RJA sj

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Mary Ann Glendon confirmed

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

A while back, several of us commented on the nomination of Professor Mary Ann Glendon to be the next Ambassador of the United States to the Holy See. On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed her nomination. I don't believe any date has yet been set for her to present her credentials, but I am sure many of us can join in a hearty and sincere round of congratulations! As the folks in Rome would say: Auguri!    RJA sj

Friday, December 21, 2007

Professor Tamanaha’s Second Mistake?

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

As a follow-up to Patrick’s recent post, Professor Tamanaha appears to makes a second mistake. What if the believer and the unbeliever have very different moral justifications for their political decision on some specific issue, e.g., abolition of the death penalty, but they concur that capital punishment should be abolished. However there is a distinction that is to be kept in mind about their concurrence: the believer, in this case a Christian, relies on moral formation based on faith, but the non-believer cannot base personal moral choices on the inspiration of faith but on something else that relies exclusively on human resources.

I have read Professor Tamanaha’s thoughtful post, to which Rob refers, in its entirety, but it seems there is a limit to the claim Professor Tamanaha makes when he asserts the following:

However, if Christians make political decisions by the lights of Christian doctrine, and it turns out that there is no God or that Christianity is wrong about the nature of things (two distinct possibilities), then Christians will have inflicted their false religious beliefs on others, with immediate consequences.

What is the non-believer to do in this case in order to avoid the “immediate consequences” inflicted by “false religious beliefs”? Convert to a stance in favor of capital punishment? I don’t think this is what Professor Tamanaha has in mind, but it would appear that there is another limitation inherent in that portion of his argument, which I have reproduced above.    RJA sj

Thursday, December 20, 2007

A reflection on and response to Michael P.’s postings

By Robert John Araujo, SJ

I appreciate Michael P.’s engagement of my thoughts posted yesterday. Unlike Michael, I cannot state with such confidence: “that many believers—including Christians—live morally abominable lives, and given that many nonbelievers live morally exemplary lives” so why would I (Araujo) “think that being a believer is a necessary (though) not sufficient) condition of gaining eternity…” Believers and non-believers alike, are sinners. This certainly includes me. The fact that I am a believer is no guarantee of my eternal fate. But I strive, along with many other believers, to respond affirmatively to the call to holiness and the path to God. This is something to which the non-believer has, by self-chosen disbelief, become disengaged. My efforts and those of others who respond to discipleship are called to assist in the effort to evangelize the un-evangelized—and the method to be used is by proposition, by engagement, rather than by other means, as I stated in my post to which Michael has responded.

I am no other person’s judge in matters about eternal life. That is God’s prerogative solely. But, if I am faithful to the call to discipleship and the duties of evangelization, it is my responsibility, as it is that of other Christians, to assist others in seeking God. I may not be a success in the exercise of responsibility, and I may even fail. But that is not what is essential. What is crucial to belief in God is that I must not lapse in my fidelity to the work that I as a Christian have been called to do.

Michael has reminded us in the past about his own Jesuit education [HERE] which seems to have left an imprint on his life. I was two years behind Michael at the same institution he attended and shared in the same education that he did. We had the opportunity to be taught, ministered to, and counseled by a good number of Jesuit priests and a few scholastics. We both encountered these men whose purpose, as stated in the Formula of the Institute establishing the Society of Jesus, is this:

to strive especially for the defense and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine, by means of public preaching, lectures, and any other ministration whatsoever of the word of God and further by means of the Spiritual Exercises, the education of children and unlettered persons in Christianity and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments. Moreover, this Society should show itself no less useful in reconciling the estranged, in holily assisting and serving those who are found in prisons or hospitals and, indeed, in performing any other works of charity, according to what will seem expedient for the glory of God and the common good.

Several decades ago I responded to the call to contribute to this purpose when I entered the Society of Jesus. I am not called to judge others, but I am called to help others, whoever they may be, to God and the salvation promised by Christ through the Christian faith. When I made my final solemn profession nine years ago, I freely obligated myself

by a special vow to carry out whatever the present and future Roman pontiffs may order which pertains to the progress of souls and the propagation of faith; and to go without subterfuge or excuse, as far as in us lies, to whatever provinces they may choose to send us…

The law of the Society that I freely obliged myself requires this of me: to devote myself as a member of the Order

with God’s grace not only to the salvation and perfection of the member’s own souls, but also with that same grace to labor strenuously in giving aid toward the salvation and perfection of the souls of [my] fellow men.

Moreover, the Complementary Norms applicable to the work to which I have responded also require this of me: to be a servant of

Christ’s universal mission in the Church and in the world of today, [to] procure that integral salvation in Jesus Christ which is begun in this life and will be brought to its fulfillment in the life to come. (Italics are mine)

It strikes me that my responsibilities as a Catholic Christian who is also a Jesuit are not inconsistent with what one of my favorite authors once said:

it is simply not true that according to the position I am presenting here, the moral insight achieved over time by the various religious traditions, by the various historically extended religious communities, has at most only a marginal place in public political debate about the morality of human conduct. Such insight… may play a central role even in a politics constrained by the ideal of nonestablishment.    Michael Perry

RJA sj

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive