I have been hunting fresh snow beneath the ridges and among the trees in Jackson Hole, and so am late in coming to the ongoing discussion about Arbp. Chaput, same-sex unions, and Catholic schools’ admissions policies.
It seems to me, for what it’s worth, that there are (at least) two separate, but related questions being debated and discussed. The first is whether or not the Church has the authority -- given by Christ to Peter, the Apostles, and their successors -- to teach regarding faith and morals. This is the question that Michael P. engaged, I think, when he asked:
The teachings of the magisterium, yes. But the teachings of Jesus Christ? I didn't realize that Jesus had anything to say about same-sex unions. What Gospel passages am I overlooking?
My understanding is that, for Catholics, the content of the “teachings of Jesus Christ” – that is, the content of the revealed Word of God – is not exhausted by the reported sayings of Jesus that appear in the Gospels. We have just as much reason, it seems to me, to believe that Jesus gave the Church teaching authority with respect to faith and morals as we do to believe that he in fact said what the Gospels report that he said. (Michael’s view, I understand, is different.)
The second question is whether, all things considered, Arbp. Chaput’s decision is wise, prudent, just, and faithful. For me, this question is not answered by asking whether the Archbishop would also exclude from Catholic schools the children of parents who practice contraception, who lie-cheat-and-steal, or do anything else immoral in their private lives. No one thinks that Catholic schools should be open only to children whose parents lead sinless lives (thank God!). But, would a Catholic school act wrongly if it were to exclude the children of parents who were publicly and notoriously involved in gravely wrong activities or campaigns? Not necessarily (in my view). So, this particular question about Arbp. Chaput's decision is, it seems to me, one of those “all things considered” kinds of questions. I would think that a pastor and bishop may (and should) consider, among other things, the extent to which the enrollment and involvement of people (children and parents) in Catholic schools could undermine the schools' moral-formation efforts. Is this such a case? I'm not sure.
Now, for Michael, the Archbishop’s decision is misguided because, at the end of the day, the Archbishop is wrong about the morality of same-sex unions and sexual activity -- the Church's teaching on these matters is false and contributes to injustice, in his view. I agree with Michael that it would be strange to exclude the children of parents for doing or supporting X if X were morally unobjectionable. But if what the parents are doing were morally objectionable, and it would create, in the Archbishop’s best judgment, a scandal – it would send the wrong message -- to enroll the children in Catholic schools, then I see no principled reason why the Archbishop could not, as part of his vocation and obligation, take these facts into account when deciding whether or not to admit those parents’ children to a Catholic school.
I would welcome others' reactions to this last sentence. Comments (civil, germane, and charitable ones, that is) are welcome.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Here's a more recent news story about a matter that came up before here at MOJ:
On a quiet street in this little town in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains lives a family of refugees who were granted asylum in the United States because they feared persecution in their home country.
The reason for that fear has rarely, if ever, been the basis of an asylum case. The parents, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, want to home-school their five children, ranging in age from 2 to 12, a practice illegal in their native land, Germany. . . .
“We’re all surprised [by the judge's decision granting asylum] because we consider the German educational system as very excellent,” said Lutz Hermann Görgens, the German consul general in Atlanta. He defended Germany’s policy on the grounds of fostering the ability “to peacefully interact with different values and different religions.” . . .
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Story here:
To the tune of "Eddie the Eagle" and the Jamaican bobsled team comes this story of Don Valerio Piro, representing the Vatican in the upcoming European chess championship.
Thanks to Mark Kende for the link!
MOJ-friend Aidan O'Neill manages deftly to use a comment on a case involving traffic laws in Scotland as an occasion to reflect interestingly on More, Aquinas, Plato, and Aristotle.
Nice!
A fascinating piece by the Becket Fund's Luke Goodrich in the Wall Street Journal:
. . . Last week, Mexico's lower house of Congress began the process of amending the Mexican Constitution to formally declare the country to be "laica"—meaning "lay" or "secular." Supporters say the amendment merely codifies Mexico's commitment to the separation of church and state. But the term "laica," like the term "separation of church and state," means different things to different people. In fact, Mexico has been fighting over the meaning of church–state separation for over a century, with pro-church factions seeking greater political control for the Catholic Church, anti-clerical factions seeking to suppress the church, and few factions willing to agree on government neutrality towards religion. The key question is: What version of the separation of church and state will this amendment embody?
Unfortunately, the context surrounding the amendment suggests that it might be a step backwards for religious liberty and true separation of church and state. . . .
(P.S.: If you care about dignity-grounded religious liberty for all -- and you should -- then you should be giving money to the Becket Fund. Here's the link.)
