Michael states that "no one who blogs at MOJ is more theologically informed or astute than, say, David Hollenbach, S.J." Certainly, Fr. Hollenbach is more "theologically informed" than I am, and I'll leave it at that.
But, Fr. Hollenbach's accomplishments in theological studies -- for which I have great respect -- do not, in my view, make the "26 Catholics for Sebelius" any more persuasive or the Sebelius nomination any less cynical.
For starters, it is important to appreciate that Gov. Sebelius's abortion-related errors go well beyond reluctantly embracing the view that (quoting Michael) "all things considered, pre-viability abortions should [not] be criminalized." For more on her record, go here. (Michael is certainly right that recognizing Roe's wrongness does not necessarily commit one to the view that pre-viability abortions *should* be criminalized. But, the Church's authoritative teachings, as I understand it -- Faithful Citizenship is, clearly, not to the contrary -- *are* to the effect that abortion is not merely a private wrong, and that unborn children should be protected in law. I would be quite surprised if, say, Fr. Hollenbach believed that Gov. Sebelius's views on abortion -- putting aside what one might think are her other merits -- were sound.)
It is becoming clear that, whatever might be the other upsides of his election, Pres. Obama's administration will, in many ways, aggressively promote the abortion-rights agenda. This agenda will include movements on, e.g., conscience-protection, RU-486, Plan B, increased public funding of abortion around the world, embryo-destructive research, pro-Roe litmus-tests for judges, etc. (How this agenda is, as the Statement suggests, going to reflect "values that . . . protect human life" and, on balance, "meet the needs" of "unborn children" is not clear to me.) The President has chosen, as the likely "point person" for many of these efforts, a prominent pro-abortion-rights Catholic. (And it's the Governor's *critics* who are "divisive"?) Those pro-life Catholics who voted for Obama should, I think, be disappointed.
Particularly regrettable is the "26 Catholics" statement's tired charge that "partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive." "Divisive" is here, as it usually is, merely code for "counter to our policy preferences." No one is "using" her "faith to attack her"; they are objecting to her nomination because her abortion record is bad. If anything, it seems to me that it is the administration, not her critics, that is cynically "using" her religion. Plenty of people -- not just a pro-abortion-rights Catholic -- could have helped the President pursue "[a]ffordable and accessible health care" etc., etc.
That Prof. Kmiec is one of the signatories to this letter is disappointing, as its premises are difficult to reconcile with positions he took, publicly and enthusiastically, for decades.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Nick Wolterstorff's (relatively) new book, "Justice" -- which I reviewed here -- is the subject of several very interesting essay-responses, over at "The Immanent Frame." Definitely worth a look.
. . . which should, of course, include all of us. Here is an interview with Brad Gooch, the author of the new book, "Flannery."
For those who (unlike me) demand more of themselves during Lent than abstinence from "Grande Nonfat Cappuccinos", here's a great Lenten Reading Plan.
This essay, by Christopher Tollefson, is well worth a read, and should be of particular interest to Catholics engaged with religious-liberty questions. It is also, or might be, responsive, to questions that Steve Shiffrin has raised, most recently, at the Scarpa Conference a few days ago. A bit:
Contemporary culture is often hostile to the idea of authority in general and to religious authority in particular. Religious liberty, on the other hand, is readily grasped as a core value of the West. How the two can be harmonized strikes many as an insurmountable difficulty. But properly understood, religious authority need be in no conflict with religious liberty. That proper understanding, however, requires a prior appreciation of the distinctive value of religion. . . .
Now it appears that, under these conditions, it is not the case that a non-coercive religious authority—that is, an authority which cannot punish with the sword—is ever in a position to violate the conscience or religious liberty of its members or its alleged members. For those members are either believers, in which case they look to the magisterial authority for guidance and, receiving it, take it to be authoritative for the formation of their conscience, or, they are not believers, perhaps because, having consulted their consciences and exercised their reasoning capacities, they no longer believe in the privileged epistemic position of the magisterial authorities. These agents, whom the magisterial authority is unable to coerce, are free to leave the set of believers, or accept what non-coercive—because avoidable at will—punishments, such as excommunication or lighter discipline the ecclesial authority may mete out, just as agents in any other voluntary association are free to leave, or accept that association’s non-coercive punishments.
At the same time, it is also clear, based on what has been said, that a mingling of religious authority and political, or coercive authority, is inappropriate, given the nature and importance of conscience and the good of religion. Yet it is important to see this as the locus of abuse, not the exercise of magisterial authority as such. Religious authority that is exercised with genuinely coercive power—the sort of power characteristic of the political state—is a perversion of both religious and political authority, and is inadequate to the tasks of either. Magisterial authority need pose no threat to religious liberty; and if the claims of some magisterial authority are true, then such authority must be considered essential for the fullest participation in the good of religion.
Thoughts?
