Tuesday, September 3, 2013
"Awesomest Country Ever About to Embark on More Awesomeness"
Chris Ferrara, whose work I've admired previously, here on MOJ and in other venues, hits the nail on the head yet again, this time with respect to Syria and that which is really driving the American engines of what is sometimes called "intervention." Please consider Ferrara's argument and facts in this brief editorial. As Bernard Lonergan asked (in one of my very favorite of his lines): "Is everyone to use force against everyone to convince everyone that force is beside the point?" Force represents a failure both of intelligence and of grace. The acephalous United States of America cannot think intelligently enough to see the need for grace in order to solve the world's problems.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
The largeness of the Church
I grew up in California, so very little surprises me. There are exceptions, however. During a recent stay in Berkeley, CA, I went to the Newman Center on a Monday, for Mass. The practice there at Newman Hall, of inviting the members of the congregation to voice, one by one, their own general intercessions -- a practice begun long before my happy and cherished law school days at Boalt (1990-93) but greatly 'utilized' during those years -- persists. On that Monday, one elderly, ardent, and articulate soul prayed, to my great astonishment, "for the conversion of Russia," and the sizable congregation replied, "Lord, hear our prayer."
Little about the Mass celebrated there at Newman resembles the Mass that included, after Low Mass, the Leonine Prayers, but the power of those prayers endures, as my recent experience demonstrates. The celebrant of the Mass on that Monday, Fr. Al Moser, who is 89 years old and whom I remember very fondly from the early '90s, breathes the presence of Christ. It's a joy to experience him celebrate the Mass, preach the Gospel, and share Holy Communion. I owe my relationship with Al Moser to Jack Coons.
During the same visit to northern California, I went to a parish in San Bruno, just south of San Francisco. There, posted (sic) in the vestibule, was a sign announcing "Price Increases." Baptism in that parish now *costs* more than it did before. Other sacraments also went up in price on that menu, in case you're wondering. I won't give you the numbers.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Brennan on Perry on Bottum
A recent it's-hard-to-know-what-to-call-it essay, mentioned still more recently on MOJ, contends that "there is no coherent jurisprudential argument against same-sex marriage." No coherent jurisprudential argument against same-sex marriage. Wow.
Is that a defensible contention? My view on the other side is summarized here. Lockeanism, fueled by neo-conservativism, leads to juridical recognition of same-sex marriage. I get it! The alternatives are stark. I credit the logic by which Bottum contends that being an American "first" (!!!) demands what Bottum then demands.
But why would any self-respecting soul want to be an American "first?" Probe Bottum's piece for the alleged reasons.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Telling the truth and the Truth
The National Catholic Reporter is running an opinion piece by Charles Reid that he originally published at a blog called Religious Left Law, so the source itself promises left-wing bias, not objectivity. The aim of Reid's piece is to do a hatchet job on the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles J. Chaput, while at the same time preaching the "imitatio Christi" (which he introduces in Latin and then translates into English for the benefit of his unlettered readers), which he then fleshes out as love, forgiveness, and hope. I don't know any Christian who opposes love, forgiveness, or hope, but I honestly don't see the love in Reid's piece. What I do see in the piece, however, is an unjust portrait of an exemplary bishop. Reid's piece plays on an interview of Chaput by John Allen (here), and anyone interested in objectivity should compare what Chaput actually said, in context, with the false portrait Reid paints.
The thrust of Reid's piece is that Chaput is distressed by Pope Francis's "popularity." First of all, I'm not sure why we should assume or conclude that popularity is a positive thing in a pope. The news reports from Rio kept saying that the crowds were treating Pope Francis "like a rockstar." Our Lord was not treated like a rockstar; He was crucified. It's not humanly possible objectively to judge Pope Francis's effect on the one thing that ultimately matters, the salvation of souls. We can only draw tentative inferences, but the implications of the "rockstar" phenomenon worry me. I am, however, hopeful about this pontificate. For example, I recently met Bishop Michael Barber, S.J., the new bishop of Oakland, and one of Pope Francis's first appointees. Bishop Barber's beatiful homily, which moved everyone in the small group for whom he said Mass, was about the need to approach our Lord in silence of the desert and in the sacraments. Pope Francis will do his greatest good, in my view, by appointing great bishops whose love for the Lord and for all will be attractive to all people of good will and will, in particular, attract good men to the priesthood and confirm them in the work of saving souls.
Second, anyone who knows Archbishop Chaput would recognize immediately what a distraction Reid's comparison amounts to. Chaput is all about serving the flock, even if it means being unpopular. In the places in Philadelphia where he is arguably unpopular, it's because he's having to close churches and schools that should have been closed years ago. I have great regard for his predecessor as Archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal Rigali, but Chaput is now bearing the brunt of doing unpopular work that Rigali refused, thus retaining a certain popularity among many of the faithful of Philadelphia.
Third, Chaput tells the truth. He is exactly correct when he observes that "conservative" Catholics "generally have not been really happy about [Pope Francis's] election." But does Chaput encourage or approve such disaffection? On the contrary, in a portion of the interview with John Allen that Reid elides, Chaput decisively counters this disaffection. He does so by stating unequivocally the following: "I think he's a truly Catholic man in every sense of the word." What better could be said about a person?
I would just add that that cannot be said of the many prelates whose lies, falsehoods, and evasions got the American Church in the current state of wide devastation. Chaput and a few other courageous bishops are rebuilding a basis for trust in the hierarchy. Cardinal Mahony talks a big game about immigration and compassion, but he also tells lies, decade after decade after decade, about children and priests and rape.
I could go on, but I'll conclude by quoting something Archbishop Chaput wrote in the Villanova Law Review: "For Christians, the trinity of virtues we call faith, hope, and charity should shape everything we do, both privately and in our public lives. . . . By love I don't mean 'love' in a sentimental sense or indulgent sense, the kind of empty love that offers 'tolerance' as an alibi for inaction in the face of evil. I mean love in the Christian sense; love with a heart of courage, love determined to build justice in society and focused on the true good of the whole human person body and soul." Chaput practices what he preaches, and I would venture to say that if we had variations on Chaput at the head of every diocese, it wouldn't take too long before the empty churches would be filling back up and the churches' ministries were again thriving.
I encourage readers to get to know the real Chaput, not the false Chaput confected by Reid and dividers of the Church who think that "left" versus "right" is a substitute for asking whether the man tells the truth. Chaput, for his part, tells the truth and the Truth. I thank God for Pope Benedict's sending him to Philadelphia.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Points of agreement
It's the current fad among certain Catholics, among others, to complain that the Church has been too "inwardly focused" in recent decades. Depending on how the charge is understood, I agree. The Second Vatican Council, however, certainly stressed the need for missionary work, work ad extra, as here in its decree Ad Gentes:
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
By means of this activity, the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly gathers and directs its forces toward its own growth (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The members of the Church are impelled to carry on such missionary activity by reason of the love with which they love God and by which they desire to share with all men the spiritual goods of both its life and the life to come.
Finally, by means of this missionary activity, God is fully glorified, provided that men fully and consciously accept His work of salvation, which He has accomplished in Christ. In this way and by this means, the plan of God is fulfilled - that plan to which Christ conformed with loving obedience for the glory of the Father who sent Him,(18) that the whole human race might form one people of God and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit which, being the expression of brotherly harmony, corresponds with the inmost wishes of all men. And so at last, there will be realized the plan of our Creator who formed man to His own image and likeness, when all who share one human nature, regenerated in Christ through the Holy Spirit and beholding the glory of God, will be able to say with one accord: "Our Father."(19)
The Church wishes to fulfill her divine mandate to correct and transform the culture in the light of the Gospel. To remain focused only on herself, would be to deny that mandate. This is what I hear Pope Francis teaching. What is urgently needed is more missionary work, not less. Starting especially where Catholics waste time on trading accusations about who's "liberal" and who's "conservative" in the Church.
It's the whole Tradition that the Church offers. The culture needs to be saturated with the Gospel. The squabbling between "left" and "right" is an impediment to the true work of the Church.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Worshipping at an intentionally "empty shrine" -- and proud of it!
I have learned much from Michael Novak over the years, but consider the logic of the following passage: “In a genuine pluralistic society, there is no one sacred canopy. By intention there is not. At its spiritual core, there is an empty shrine. That shrine is left empty in the knowledge that no one word, image, or symbol is worthy of what all seek there. Its emptiness, therefore, represents the transcendence which approached by free consciences from a virtually infinite number of directions. . . . Such an order calls forth not only a new theology but a new type of religion.” Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism 53, 69 (1982, 1991). Novak wants to rewrite theology and create "a new type of religion" in order to prop up pluralism. The importance of instantiating pluralism is so transcendent in Novak's eyes, in fact, that he is willing to compel all of us to be arrayed around an "empty shrine." I look in vain in the theology of the Catholic religion for support for worship at an "empty shrine." The tomb was in fact empty on Easter morning, but that was because Christ had risen from the dead. Now He is to be worshipped and obeyed and loved. Pluralism is a fact about our world, to be sure, but not a reason to invent a new religion. Pluralism requires prudent action and lots of toleration, but not the intentional fabrication of an "empty shrine.". And, by the way, is it true that Christ is, as Novak contends, "not worthy of what all seek?" Not all people of good will acknowledge Christ as their redeemer and king, and, within the limits of the common good, individuals should be free to practice even false religions. But justice requires me to resist the suggestion that Christ is somehow "not worthy." Quite the reverse, "Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum . . . ." This prayer that was prayed six times in the Usus Antiquior is prayed only once in Pope Paul's new Mass, and in that, I am afraid, there can be no cause for surprise. New theology, new religion? It wasn't my idea.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
"The pursuit of happiness"
My new paper, "'The Pursuit of Happiness' Comes Home to Roost? Same-Sex Union, the Summum Bonum, and Equality," published as part of a symposium on "Whether Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutionally Required" in The BYU Journal of Public Law, is available here.
Here is the abstract for the paper:
John Locke understood human happiness to amount to the removal of "uneasiness." This paper argues that,to the extent that the United States is a nation dedicated to "the pursuit of happiness" understood as the removal of "uneasiness," same-sex unions or marriages should be given legal recognition. While Locke defended a variation on traditional marriage on the grounds of progenitiveness and care for dependent offspring, his more foundational commitment to the importance of the removal of uneasiness precludes, on pain of inconsistency, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. This paper argues, furthermore, that conservatives and neo-conservatives who celebrate this nation's being "the first creedal nation" in history are, when they come to oppose same-sex marriage, hoist of their own creedal petard; "the pursuit of happiness" leads, for some people, to same-sex union. Locke followed his own logic to a defense of polygamy, and the same logic leads to same-sex unions. The paper concludes that truly principled opposition to same-sex marriage requires the embrace of politics rooted in man's summum bonum, the very project modernity has been out to eradicate. The Catholic Church would be a help to the state in leading man to achieve his summum bonum, but Locke's tolerance does not extend to the liberty of the Church (libertas Ecclesiae), nor, not accidentally, does the U.S. Constitution recognize the liberty of the Church per se.
This paper originated as an invited contribution to a symposium on "Whether Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutionally Required," held at BYU's J. Reuben Clark School of Law in November, 2012. The Lockean logic of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in United States v. Windsor is unmistakable (if unnamed), even if the Court stopped slightly short of taking that logic for all that it is worth. Given Justice Kennedy's Lockean principles, there is no principled basis for not announcing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as Justice Scalia recognized in dissent.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Lawlessness cuts more than one way
The Catholic bishops in the United States need better guidance and more prudence. The USCCB's statement earlier today regarding the Supreme Court decisions in Windsor and Perry includes the following sentence: "It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter." Why? Chief Justice Roberts's opinion makes clear that the Court understood itself *not* to have had lawfully before it the "opportunity" to uphold Proposition 8. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether or not the Court should have found that there was standing in Perry, and thus an "opportunity" to reach the merits, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan determined that standing was lacking. On what basis, then, does the USCCB rebuke the Court for refusing an "opportunity" that the USCCB assuredly cannot demonstrate that the Court possessed? "Conservative" complaints about so-called "judicial activism" ring hollow when judged against such "activist" grievances.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Honoring Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.
The eighth annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics, and Culture will celebrate and explore the scholarly and judicial achievements of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. Judge Noonan's vast and diverse scholarly corpus includes now-classic contributions on canon law, bribery, usury, contraception, religious freedom, development of doctrine, legal ethics, jurisprudence, and many other topics. The conference will be held at Villanova Law on Friday, November 15, 2013, and Judge Noonan will deliver the keynote address. Please mark your calendar and plan to attend. Other confirmed speakers include:
--His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
-- Richard W. Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School
-- Kenneth Pennington, Kelly-Quinn Professor of Ecclesiastical and Legal History, The Catholic University of America
--Robert Rodes, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Legal Ethics, Notre Dame Law School
--Joseph Vining, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan Law School
Thursday, June 6, 2013
"a real game-changer"
"A real game-changer," that's how Claire Lucas, senior advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), described the Obama administration's new program to train activists on behalf of homosexual causes around the globe. Here is the story . Trouble is, it's not a "game," and no one should be fooled into treating it as one. U.S. taxpayers' dollars are being spent to advocate internationally for laws and policies that most Americans still oppose and that, what is more, violate the moral law.
And speaking of law, consider the following conclusion of Ursula Cristina Bassett concerning what ensues, as a matter of historical fact, upon legal recognition of homosexual union: “It quickly became clear that legalising same-sex marriage required a revolution to our internal law. It impacted laws regulating public order, identity, gender, rules of kinship, filiation, marriage, names, marital property arrangements, divorce, alimony, parental rights, succession, domestic violence, adoption, artificial reproductive techniques, surrogate motherhood, liberty of conscience, criminal law, tax law and employment law, among other topics. All of these subjects would need to be attuned to the gender-neutral paradigm ... same sex marriage law in Argentina has turned the law upside down—no stone has remained unturned”. Basset's work was recently considered by the British Parliament (here at column 947) before it voted, in effect, to leave "no stone . . . unturned."
While many are busily "dialing it down," including a growing number of equivocating and misleading Catholic prelates (e.g., Belgium's Cardinal Danneels), the players of the "game" that is no game at all are positioning things to leave no stone unturned. The purveyors of the Church of Nice are complicit, alas, in the creation of an unCatholic world order.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
