I would like to thank Steve Shiffrin for his post “Father Dulles and Church Authority: A Response to Mike Scaperlanda.” I am grateful to Steve for his post which serves as a helpful catalyst to continue the discussion that has been taking place at Mirror of Justice regarding academic freedom and related issues.
In candor, I share the “wise remarks” of Cardinal Dulles to which Steve makes reference in when he quotes Michael S’s earlier post. Later on Steve raises the challenges posed in Robert J. Egan, S.J.’s recent article published in Commonweal that questions the Church’s teachings on who can be ordained and who cannot. Whether Bob Egan’s essay constitutes dissent or not is not the issue that I am addressing here. The subject of my posting today concentrates on the notion of authority and my right to support it knowing that there are those who may well disagree with me.
As members of the Church, we are familiar with authority. Some might argue that the Church began to exercise its authority in the early Councils such as Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451). But we cannot overlook the teachings of our Lord when he himself was present in this world and taught with authority—the passages from Saint John’s Gospel on the vinedresser, the vine, and branches is but one illustration of the exercise of authority. As individual members of the Church, the Body of Christ, we are free to embrace these teachings or not. But once we put on Christ and elect to hold on to him, surely we submit knowingly and freely to him and his vicar, the successor of Peter.
Having said this, I submit that God has given us intelligence to use right reason to enable the teachings of the Lord to apply to situations that did not previously exist. In this regard, I think we would agree that Christian teaching must be developed to tackle the moral issues posed by developments in biotechnology that necessitate a Christian response. This same intelligence should make us realize that there are persons and institutions of authority in the Church who hold the responsibility to make and enforce teachings that have or will become first principles and core beliefs of the Body of Christ. Indeed, there can be and often is discussion and debate as issues emerge and are identified. But there comes the time when the debate stops, decisions must be made, teachings clarified, and authority exercised.
But is this all that different from the deference we who are lawyers give to the authority of the law and those who hold certain positions as legislators, administrators, and judges? We may disagree with a law or a judicial interpretation, but until such time as it is changed via properly ordained channels, we who are members of the legal community are obliged to respect, honor, and observe what the authority has concluded if we choose to remain within the community that is regulated by the legal authority.
For those of us who are teachers and have been given authority to direct classes, to administer exams, and to evaluate student proficiency in the subjects we teach, authority is also present. A student may disagree with the magisterium of the professor and dissent from the instructor’s rules that regulate the course and the evaluation of the student, but that does not invalidate the professor’s authority that has been given to him or her by a larger authority, the university. The student is free to take the course offered by this professor as regulated by this professor, consistent with the rules imposed by the university. But once the student decides to remain in this course, he or she has chosen to be subject to the professor’s rightful authority.
The parallel of these two illustrations exists within the Church. The opportunity to debate or discuss is one thing. If there is a right to make these arguments, there is also reason to expect responses from those in authority who disagree.
Those who don’t hold authority, which should be exercised in Christ-like fashion, include the laity, most clerics and religious, and most theologians. Cardinal Dulles’s remarks do not raise for me the questions that Steve identifies in his post. When contrasting the views of Cardinal Ratzinger and Father Egan, we need to acknowledge the distinct authorities which each possesses and are different from one another. The question about the faithful’s inclusion in the Church was addressed by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium. Whether anyone wishes to contest that conclusion is up to the individual. But if this contention were to be made, it would contravene the authoritative statement of the Church on the matter. When Steve asks whether the reception of Church teachings by the faithful is necessary for the teaching to be definitive, I think he means whether they follow it or not. While some laity, clerics and religious have registered disagreement with particular Church teachings, their actions do not undermine the right of those whose duty it is to speak with authority.
I don’t think Steve has ignited a fiery debate, but he has stimulated a spirited exchange in which he is free to offer his views and others are free to respond. While the interlocutors may assert claims of truth against claims of falsehood, the final decisions about who is right and who is wrong will be made by those who have the authority to make them. Once again, I am in no position to quantify how many persons disagree with Church authority. But I am in a position to declare whether I agree with the authority or not. And as I do so, I am also free, as is my interlocutor, to present the justifications for the positions that I take and argue. While some may call it a defense and others may call it apologetics (both of which are correct), I’ll simply refer to it as an exercise of freedom for accepting and defending what the Church declares to be true, and I am grateful to the members of this site who welcome my participation notwithstanding the agreements we may share or the disagreements we may express. RJA sj
Kevin Schmiesing at the Acton Institute blog has this to say on the recent First Things coverage of immigration:
"Sure to be a significant issue in the presidential campaign going forward, the question of immigration reform continues to divide otherwise like-minded religious folks. Mirror of Justice sage Michael Scaperlanda penned an article on the subject for First Things in February. A raft of letters upset with what the writers deemed Scaperlanda’s unreasonably lenient view toward illegal immigrants followed in the May issue (not accessible to non-subscribers), along with an article-length exchange between Scaperlanda and attorney William Chip. Scaperlanda’s initial article as well as part of the subsequent debate revolves around statements made by Catholic bishops on the subject."
For the full post, click here.
HT: Mattias Caro
Susan Stabile has a beautiful post on her blog, Creo en Dios!, on what it means to be Catholic. Although not addressing directly our recent conversation of academic freedom and dissent, it provides a profound image of what it is to be Catholic. Susan is speaking for herself, but I think many of us can identify. Here is a bit, but I hope you read the rest:
"As I prayed ... one morning, I saw an image of the apostolic line stretching forward from Peter through the Popes over the years through to the present day Pope. I saw that it is that apostolic line that holds the structure of this tent we call Catholicism. And I realized that the fact that there is a tent held together by that apostolic succession means something. It keeps us united as part of one Body, as one community. It creates the necessary ecosystem for us to thrive.
Inside the tent, we squabble a bit and sometimes we squabble a lot (and some of those squabbles perhaps deserve a name more serious than “squabble”). And any given time, one or another of us may not be fully happy with some of the ground covered by the tent. And that’s OK. The thing is, not only is the tent large, but there is some give in the contours of the tent and over time it stretches a bit here and moves a bit there. It stretches, it pulls, it bulges, it strains - but it holds, it doesn’t tear. It holds and it helps us remember who we are."
Thank you Susan!
Our dean's decision not to allow students to fulfill their public service graduation requirements by volunteering at Planned Parenthood has received substantial local news coverage. Most of it has been fair and balanced (though one wonders about the state of Catholic higher education when this decision is deemed sufficiently newsworthy to lead off a nightly newscast). My favorite quote was from the head of Minnesota's Planned Parenthood office, who explained that Dean Mengler's decision not only violates academic freedom, but it also "illustrates a disturbing and dangerous lack of tolerance."
Although some ecclesiastical provinces have moved the celebration of Ascension to Sunday, today is the day on which we traditionally celebrate the Ascention of the Lord. As I reflect at greater length here, the day is not simply the remembrance of the historical event of Jesus' ascension. Rather, it is a reminder for us of our commissioning by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel to all nations, to be the Body of Christ to the world.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Recently, I shared at some length here at the Mirror of Justice (here, here, and here) my impressions after listening to the interesting observations on faith and private and public life offered by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Compassion Forum held before the Pennsylvania primary. In another post on the trends in the Catholic vote during the Democratic primaries, I noted that “Senator McCain chose not to participate in the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this month, saying that he takes a more private approach to his religious faith. We will have to see whether McCain then is able to convince faithful Catholics that he respects their perspective, values their communities, and understands the centrality of religious faith and observance in their lives. McCain’s ability to speak directly to working class and non-urban Catholics has not yet been tested.”
In a column in today's Wall Street Journal, “Getting to Know John McCain,” Karl Rove confirms McCain’s insistence on remaining very private about his faith, but argues that “if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.” The column relates stories (always shared by others and rarely mentioned by McCain) about how McCain’s faith shows itself in what he does say and do in private, dating back to his years as a prisoner of war . Herewith some examples:
Another story I heard over dinner with the Days involved Mr. McCain serving as one of the three chaplains for his fellow prisoners. At one point, after being shuttled among different prisons, Mr. Day had found himself as the most senior officer at the Hanoi Hilton. So he tapped Mr. McCain to help administer religious services to the other prisoners.
Today, Mr. Day, a very active 83, still vividly recalls Mr. McCain's sermons. "He remembered the Episcopal liturgy," Mr. Day says, "and sounded like a bona fide preacher." One of Mr. McCain's first sermons took as its text Luke 20:25 and Matthew 22:21, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Mr. McCain said he and his fellow prisoners shouldn't ask God to free them, but to help them become the best people they could be while serving as POWs. It was Caesar who put them in prison and Caesar who would get them out. Their task was to act with honor.
Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.
One night, a Vietnamese guard loosened his bonds, returning at the end of his watch to tighten them again so no one would notice. Shortly after, on Christmas Day, the same guard stood beside Mr. McCain in the prison yard and drew a cross in the sand before erasing it. Mr. McCain later said that when he returned to Vietnam for the first time after the war, the only person he really wanted to meet was that guard.
* * *
[I]n 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.
Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.
I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.
"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.
Query: Will circulation of such stories through the grapevine make any difference? Should Senator McCain be expected to speak more directly to religion in the public square, as did the Democratic contenders at the Compassion Forum earlier this month?
Greg Sisk
From Christianity Today online:
After refusing to discuss the details of his divorce, tenured professor Kent Gramm resigned from his English position at [evangelical] Wheaton College.
Wheaton’s faculty handbook states that the college will consider employee retention “when there is reasonable evidence that the circumstances that led to the final dissolution of the marriage related to desertion or adultery on the part of the other partner."
But Gramm declined to discuss details. “None of Your Business” headlined Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times front-page story.
Wheaton apparently followed the rule it had in place. But the comments section includes interesting thoughts on what the rule should be, for example:
Christians are often accused of being inconsistent in discussing family issues--i.e., how can you be vocal on homosexuality but silent on no-fault divorce? Opposing no-fault divorce is one step toward consistency and one step away from hypocrisy. I think firing Christian professors who do not defend their life choices is one way to make that statement.
Versus:
Yes, they should fire the divorcing person as long as they fire everyone else who commits a sin or makes a mistake.
Tom
Mike Scaperlanda quotes what he regards as the wise remarks
of Father Avery Dulles: "All Catholics are of course obliged to accept the
definitive teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Even in
the sphere of nondefinitive teaching, theologians should normally trust and
support the magisterium and dissent only rarely and reluctantly, for reasons
that are truly serious. Dissent, if it arises, should always be modest
and restrained. Dissent that is arrogant, strident, and bitter can have
no right of existence in the Church. Those who dissent must be careful to
explain that they are proposing only their personal views, not the doctrine of
the Church. They must refrain from bringing pressure on the magisterium
by recourse of popular media." Mike thinks that the remarks about
theologians apply a fortiori to non-theologians.
The remarks of Father Dulles raise many questions. What are
the definitive teachings of the Church? Is the view that women can not be
priests, as then Cardinal Ratzinger suggested some years back, one of them?
Does the Church include the faithful? Is their reception of a doctrine
necessary for a teaching to be definitive? Are all non-definitive teachings worthy
of the respect Father Dulles suggests? Or was Father McCormick correct in suggesting
that substantially less deference be afforded to various pronouncements the
Church has made regarding women and sexuality? Does the prohibition of
arrogant, strident, and bitter debate preclude civil, but robust and wise-open
debate? Does the attempt to discourage debate in the popular media suggest that
Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter are illegitimate media? Is Mirror
of Justice part of the popular media?
What would have happened if Catholics had never objected to
the teachings of the Church? Consider the statement of Father Robert Egan,
S.J., in his excellent article, “Why Not Ordain Women,” (Commonweal, April 11):
“If there were reason to believe the magisterium had never made a mistake, [one
of the arguments against the ordination of women would be more understandable].
Yet the magisterium justified the institution of slavery, tolerated and
endorsed a harsh misogyny and the oppression of women by men, defended the use
of torture, blessed the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the burning at the stake
of heretics, cultivated a disdainful and punitive attitude toward the Jewish
people, insisted that sexual intercourse was morally tolerable only for the
sake of procreation, condemned democracy, ridiculed the idea of religious
liberty, denied the legitimacy of the idea of human rights, and condemned the
separation of church and state. These last six teachings were only reversed at
Vatican II, which some church leaders now claim was in perfect continuity with
the church history preceding it.
“All these teachings were probably considered ‘settled
doctrine’ by the authorities who promulgated and wrote about them. That should
teach us something about not trying to bind the future to the current stage of
our own comprehension. . . . The church risks setting a bad example [in making
theology a defense of magisterial teaching], modeling a behavior which, in any
other social body, would clearly be considered falsifying and corrupting.”
I cite Father Egan not for the purpose of igniting yet
another debate about the history of the Catholic Church (though some may feel
it necessary to dive in to the fire again). I simply state again that most
American Catholics reject many teachings promulgated by the Vatican and the
American Bishops. I doubt their attitudes toward the magisterium are in harmony
with those of Father Dulles, and I think that some authors on this site do not
agree with Father Dulles. Mirror of Justice could be a site in which professors
(theologians or not) exchange their honest views about the magisterium. It can
not be that if those of us who take a negative view of parts of the magisterium
and the claims made for its authority are successfully discouraged from
speaking. I doubt Mike thought his endorsement of the remarks of Father Dulles
would really discourage discussion. It might suggest he thinks this would be a
better site if it were exclusively designed to defend and interpret the
magisterium with no questioning of it by non-theologians. But it is not. Not
yet anyway. If it were, a minority of us could move on. We could all potentially live long, happy, and [with God’s
grace] at least partially holy lives. And we could agree to disagree whether
the site were better or worse off.
