Over at Whispers in the Loggia, Rocco Palmo has posted a long piece from a Salt Lake City newspaper about its incoming Ordinary, Bishop John Wester. Wester has been an Auxiliary to the Archbishop of San Francisco, who was until recently, as you know, Archbishop Levada, the man who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF. The piece suggests that Wester's appointment confirms the "type" of bishop Pope Benedict prefers, and leads with this: "By all accounts, Bishop John C. Wester, the newly appointed leader of Utah's 200,000 Catholics, is fair-minded, pragmatic, nurturing and - here's the key fact - not overly ideological."
"Not overly ideological?" Any trace of being "ideological" is "overly much" in a bishop, at least as the word is used by, say, Eric Voegelin. But one suspects a different meaning is intended here. Who, then, are the "overly ideological" bishops in the U.S.? Are there U.S. bishops who are taking public positions or action that lacks the support of their office and the faith? If anything, many of us would wish that the U.S. bishops would start showing more zeal in matters within the competence of their office, such as promotion and protection of the sacraments. When doing so, they would be innocent of "ideology." With Nancy Pelosi (apparently) receiving Holy Communion every Sunday and being radically and conspicuously "pro-choice" all week long, there's work to be done, even if it risks being mis-described as "overly ideological." However, given Archbishop Wuerl's recent remarks in San Diego, I don't think we're going to see much that will worry those who fear "overly ideological" bishops.
Most remarkable in the following, I think, is the unequivocal affirmation that the "moral law" must govern us in our social -- and, therefore, our political -- connections. Pope Benedict generally avoids the idiom of law to describe the moral order, but when he talks to the jurists, he hits the nail on the head.
VATICAN CITY, DEC 9, 2006 (VIS) - The Pope today received participants in the 56th national study congress, promoted by the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, which is being held in Rome on the theme: "Secularity and secularities."
The concept of secularity, said the Holy Father in his address to the group, originally referred to "the condition of simple faithful Christian, not belonging to the clergy or the religious state. During the Middle Ages it acquired the meaning of opposition between civil authorities and ecclesial hierarchies, and in modern times it has assumed the significance of the exclusion of religion and its symbols from public life by confining them to the private sphere and the individual conscience. In this way, the term secularity has acquired an ideological meaning quite opposite to the one it originally held."
Secularity today, then, "is understood as a total separation between State and Church, the latter not having any right to intervene in questions concerning the life and behavior of citizens. And such secularity even involves the exclusion of religious symbols from public places." In accordance with this definition, the Pope continued, "today we hear talk of secular thought, secular morals, secular science, secular politics. In fact, at the root of such a concept, is an a-religious view of life, thought and morals; that is, a view in which there is no place for God, for a Mystery that transcends pure reason, for a moral law of absolute value that is valid in all times and situations."
The Holy Father underlined the need "to create a concept of secularity that, on the one hand, grants God and His moral law, Christ and His Church, their just place in human life at both an individual and a social level, and on the other hand affirms and respects the 'legitimate autonomy of earthly affairs'."
The Church, the Pope reiterated, cannot intervene in politics, because that would "constitute undue interference." However, "'healthy secularity' means that the State does not consider religion merely as an individual sentiment that can be confined to the private sphere." Rather, it must be "recognized as a ... public presence. This means that all religious confessions (so long as they do not contrast the moral order and are not dangerous to public order) are guaranteed free exercise of their acts of worship."
Hostility against "any form of political or cultural relevance of religion," and in particular against "any kind of religious symbol in public institutions" is a degenerated form of secularity, said the Holy Father, as is "refusing the Christian community, and those who legitimately represent it, the right to pronounce on the moral problems that today appeal to the conscience of all human beings, particularly of legislators.
"This," he added, "does not constitute undue interference of the Church in legislative activity, which is the exclusive competence of the State, but the affirmation and the defense of those great values that give meaning to people's lives and safeguard their dignity. These values, even before being Christian, are human, and therefore cannot leave the Church silent and indifferent, when she has the duty firmly to proclaim the truth about man and his destiny."
The Pope concluded by highlighting the need "to bring people to understand that the moral law God gave us - and that expresses itself in us through the voice of conscience - has the aim not of oppressing us but of freeing us from evil and of making us happy. We must show that without God man is lost, and that the exclusion of religion from social life, and in particular the marginalization of Christianity, undermines the very foundations of human coexistence. Such foundations, indeed, before being of the social and political order, belong to the moral order."
Oddly, the NYT article to which Michael P. calls attention neglects to mention that the leading medical professionals responsible for DSM-IV continue to regard the gender-identity phenomenon as a "mental disorder." We can look forward to DSM-V; meanwhile, the Magisterium can be excused for not calling for, inter alia, the practice adopted at the Park Day School in Oakland, CA, viz., separating children by sneaker color so as to avoid separating them by gender. (Does the Park Day School's practice wrongly assume that are no statistically significant correlations between gender preference and choice of sneaker color)?
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders > Introduction > Gender Identity Disorders >
Gender Identity Disorder
Sections: Associated laboratory findings., Associated physical examination findings and general medical conditions..
Topics Discussed: gender identity disorder.
Excerpt: "There are two components of Gender Identity Disorder, both of which must be present to make the diagnosis. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex (Criterion A). This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criterion B). The diagnosis is not made if the individual has a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., partial androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia) (Criterion C). To make the diagnosis, there must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion D).In boys, the cross-gender identification is manifested by a marked preoccupation with traditionally feminine activities. They may have a preference for dressing in girls' or women's clothes or may improvise such items from available materials when genuine articles are unavailable. Towels, aprons, and scarves are often used to represent long hair or skirts. There is a strong attraction for the stereotypical games and pastimes of girls. They particularly enjoy playing house, drawing pictures of beautiful girls and princesses, and watching television or videos of their favorite female characters. Stereotypical female-type dolls, such as Barbie, are often their favorite toys, and girls are their preferred playmates. When playing "house," these boys role-play female figures, most commonly "mother roles," and often are quite preoccupied with female fantasy figures. They avoid rough-and-tumble play and competitive sports and have little interest in cars and trucks or other nonaggressive but stereotypical boys' toys. They may express a wish to be a girl and assert that they will grow up to be a woman. They may insist on sitting to urinate and pretend not to have a penis by pushing it in between their legs. More rarely, boys with Gender Identity Disorder may state that they find their penis or testes disgusting, that they want to remove them, or that they have, or wish to have, a vagina...."
In Fairfax County, Virginia, soup kitchens aren't what they used to be, because the county decided not to concede power it wrongly assumes is its own to concede or not. The Christians in the county appear to be appropriately dismayed, but they remain unable legally to do what the Gospel invites.
Rowan Williams has just given us a profound, inspiring, beautiful meditation on the Benedictine contribution to our past and, perhaps, to our future. The Archbishop's insights into the saint's understanding of obedience, and what it might mean for us in political society, are especially rich. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/061121.htm
Lonergan advanced the metaphor of the "double undertow" to describe the obstacle faced by persons who seek to do good in a (significantly) defective culture. Having grown up on the shores of the Pacific, I know the force of the aquatic undertow. Living in this culture, I recall Lonergan's suggestion that reversals of the cultural undertow may come to pass thanks to irony, satire, humor, or other modest-but-powerful means. Prophecy always needs to be tested. "Reason" always needs to be purified, as the Holy Father reminds us. The more shocking the prevailing culture, including its capture of "reason," the more needful will be means tightly calibrated to correct the mistakes at their points of entry. A corrective that is helpful today, in my judgment, is the Catholic insight that we live under law -- not mere "practical reason." Yes, we discover, implement, and give specification to that law through and thanks to "practical reason." And yes, that requires casuistry. The dilemma between "prophecy" and "practical reason," though helpful to a point, may be false.
Not that they can nearly compete with Rumsfeld's exit, the election results, or "Culture of Life/Death vs. Deus caritas est," but I thought I'd at least mention that I have just posted two new papers. "The Decreasing Ontological Density of the State in Catholic Social Doctrine," a sexy title if ever there were one, benefited from the incisive comments of fellow-MOJers Rob Vischer and Rick Garnett and Mark Sargent. The other, "Harmonizing Plural Societies," engages some of Rick's and Rob's ideas as they bear on "school choice." Comments will be gratefully received.
Reflecting on how to think about what Rick or someone similarly situated might write for his parish bulletin, I would hazard that a parishoner's "statement" in a parish bulletin, concerning a matter on which he or she invites fellow parishoners to bring justice to bear on a matter of import to the faithful, and does so in a way that fairly mediates the teaching of the Church, should be encouraged as exemplary of what Benedict XVI asks of the laity in Deus caritas (and elsewhere). It is for the laity to bring reason-purified-through-faith to bear on politics, and if the parish bulletin is not a place to begin that conversation (in statements signed by competent laity) and carry it forward, in a way that shows and builds the Church's call to the laity to transform the social order in ways taught by the Church and specified by the laity, I can hardly imagine such a place. (I guess I can imagine an old-fashioned bulletin that sticks to the knitting of the sacramental life, but I haven't seen one of those in quite some time). It will be for the pastors to decide that is "unnecessarily polarizing," and on that basis to exclude it from parish conversation. Assuming the orthodoxy of such contributions by the laity, though, I should think that inclusion in the hope of education and witness would be the clear norm.
This is a press release issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, September 30, 2006. For further information, contact NRLC at 202-626-8820 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Eight Senate Democrats Flip, Kill Parental Notification Bill
WASHINGTON -- A bill to generally require notification of one parent before a minor obtains an out-of-state abortion died Friday when Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly to block it.
Hours before Congress adjourned for pre-election campaigning, 57 senators voted to remove the final procedural obstacle to S. 403, which would have cleared the bill for transmission to President Bush for his signature. But 57 was three votes short of the 60 required under Senate rules to break through a procedural roadblock erected by the Senate Democratic leadership.
The Senate Democratic leadership had been obstructing the progress of the legislation for months. This week, pro-life Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.) made a bold attempt to overcome the minority's obstructionism by forcing the decisive cloture vote.
The cloture motion was supported by 51 of the chamber's 55 Republicans (93%), but by only six of the 45 members of the Democratic caucus (13%). The complete roll call can be viewed here.
The bill, S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, as it initally passed the Senate on July 25 by a vote of 65-34, would have prohibited transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this abridged the parents' right to be notified under the home-state law. However, the Senate Democratic leadership subsequently raised unusual procedural barriers that prevented the bill from going to a House-Senate conference committee. On September 26, the House took up the Senate-passed bill, added a provision to require an abortionist in any state to notify one parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state (with certain exceptions), and sent the bill back to the Senate by a vote of 264-153 (under the title "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act," or CIANA). It was this amended bill that the Senate voted on last night.
Of the 14 Democrats who initiatially voted in favor of S. 403 on July 25, yesterday eight flipped and voted to kill the parental notification requirement: Ken Salazar (Co.), Tom Carper (De.), Bill Nelson (Fl.), Daniel Inouye (Hi.), Evan Bayh (In.), Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (both ND), and Herb Kohl (Wi).
The six Democrats who voted in favor of the bill on both occasions were Mark Pryor (Ar.), Ben Nelson (Ne.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Harry Reid (Nv.), Tim Johnson (SD), and Robert Byrd (WV). The four Republicans who opposed the bill were Lincoln Chafee (RI), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both Maine), and Arlen Specter (Pa.).
"It is remarkable that only six out of 45 Senate Democrats voted to require a parent to be notified before an abortion is performed on a young daughter in some other state," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, who noted that the bill had exceptions for cases involving abuse, medical emergency, and judicial waiver of notification. "We commend Majority Leader Bill Frist for fighting to the end to free this legislation from the grip of a Senate minority, a minority that has preserved the ability of profiteering abortionists to keep parents in the dark." The chief sponsors of the legislation are Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.) and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.).
To view a letter from NRLC to the Senate that explains the provisions of the bill in detail, click here.
For other information on the legislation, including the full text (PDF format), summaries of state parental notification and consent laws, and other resources, click here.
To view NRLC's scorecard of all key pro-life roll calls in the Senate during the current Congress, click here.
To view NRLC's scorecard of all key pro-life roll calls in the House of Representatives during the current Congress, click here.
