Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Conscience and the Pro-Life Doctor

By Rob Vischer

Last week Rick invited me to respond to a post by Christopher Kaczor at First Things about last year's opinion on the role of conscience in reproductive medicine from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  I agree that the College's opinion is unduly one-sided, elevating patient autonomy as an absolute value.  My own work tries to focus more broadly on whether there is a functioning marketplace for contested goods and services.  The focus should be on access within the market, not on ensuring that every provider conforms to the party line.  Since most MoJ-ers will presumably share my skepticism toward the College's opinion, let me raise a couple of points of disagreement with Dr. Kaczor and with Fr. Araujo, who thoughtfully commented on the opinion as well.

Dr. Kaczor takes issue with the College's statement that “Although respect for conscience is a value, it is only a prima facie value, which means it can and should be overridden in the interest of other moral obligations that outweigh it in a given circumstance."  My question for Dr. Kaczor is, if the law must treat a claim of conscience as more than a "prima facie value," does that mean that the law should treat conscience as an absolute value?  If so, how could our legal system function with that understanding of conscience?  The Civil Rights Act, for example, is a clear example of the law running roughshod over dissenting claims of conscience.  If the law must retreat whenever conscience is invoked, the rule of law is going to encounter some serious obstacles.

Relatedly, Dr. Kaczor explains his disagreement with the College's opinion by analogizing to a soldier:

Consider someone volunteering for military service who receives all the benefits and responsibilities that come with the oath to obey superior officers. If a superior officer orders him to do something that he considers morally wrong, if we make use of the principles invoked by the ACOG, the soldier may only disobey the order if there are other soldiers available to carry that order out. Surely, however, the demands of conscience should not be gerrymandered by the availability of people who very well may be less enlightened and conscientious.

Is he suggesting that soldiers should have a right of conscience to disobey superiors' orders without suffering any discipline for that disobedience?  The closest I've gotten to military service is repeated viewings of Saving Private Ryan, but it seems that Dr. Kaczor's view challenges the premises of the chain of command.  It also illustrates a broader problem I have with many all-or-nothing defenses of a right to conscience.  The fact that the law does not grant me a right to obey my conscience without fear of reprisal does not mean that my conscience has been snuffed out.  It just means that I might have to pay a price for standing by my convictions.  A soldier is free to disobey the immoral orders of a superior, but he must be ready to defend that decision in a court martial.  Similarly, a obstetrician may refuse the directive to refer patients to an abortion provider, but he may need to count the cost of that refusal.  To be clear, I oppose requiring a referral under those circumstances, but the law's failure to provide a blanket shield to claims of conscience does not mean that conscience is inoperative.  Conscience is not costless.

And just a word in response to Fr. Araujo's criticism of the College's opinion.  He writes that:

The conscience that is being sacrificed here is not one that is subjectively determined (like the autonomy intrinsic to “reproductive health rights”) but one that is designed to advance an objectively determined moral order.

The problem is that the relevant authorities (here, the College) do not agree that abortion is inconsistent with an objectively determined moral order.  Now what?  My fear is that when we put so much weight on the "objective" nature of the conscience claims at issue, we have set the legal argument for recognizing conscience on a pretty shaky foundation.  For freedom of conscience to remain vital, it cannot rest on the demonstrable truth value of the claims for which conscience is invoked.  Many of the truths that matter most are not demonstrable, or are at least not demonstrable to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities.

By Michael Perry

GOD AND MAN AT NOTRE DAME

Kenneth L. Woodward

[This op-ed, by former Commonweal editor Kenneth Woodward, is published in today's New York Times.]

POPE BENEDICT XVI will give several speeches during his visit to the United States, but the most consequential for American Catholics may be his address to the presidents of Catholic colleges and universities tomorrow.

Benedict has shown himself concerned about preserving the specifically Roman Catholic identity of all Catholic institutions, particularly those in higher education. His predecessor, John Paul II, tried to do this by insisting that Catholic theology professors sign a document called a mandatum affirming their fidelity to the papal teaching. Conservative Catholics are counting on Benedict to enforce this approach.

Yet, because Benedict is at heart a professor, I hope that he recognizes that fidelity to church teachings cannot be coerced.

No question, a Catholic university should be identifiably Catholic. But the problem of institutional identity goes far beyond litmus tests for theologians.

Arguments over the “identity crisis” on Catholic campuses have been going on for 50 years — long enough to realize that there is no single thing that makes a Catholic university Catholic. Indeed, the question of Catholic identity has as much to do with the changes in Catholic students and their parents as it does with faculty members and administrations.

In the early 1960s, half of all Catholic children attended Catholic grade and high schools. The 10 percent or so who went on to college had some 300 Catholic colleges and universities to choose from — more, in fact, than in the rest of the world combined. Catholics were expected to attend one of these; those who wanted to attend, say, an Ivy League college often had to get permission from their pastor.

Today few Catholic students or parents are likely to choose a Catholic university if Princeton or Stanford is an option. A Catholic higher education, in other words, is less prized by many Catholic parents — including complaining conservatives — than the name on the college diploma.

Another difference is this: Well into the 1960s, Catholic college freshmen arrived with a knowledge of the basics of their religion — enough, at least, to question the answers they were given as children or, among the brighter students, to be challenged in theology classes toward a more mature grasp of their faith.

Most of today’s Catholic students, however, have no such grounding. Even the graduates of Catholic high schools, theology professors complain, have to be taught the fundamentals. As one Methodist theologian at Notre Dame wryly put it, “Before I teach my course on marriage I have to tell them first what their own church has to say on the subject.”

No question, Catholic colleges were more “Catholic” then than they are today. Most were small campuses with a liberal-arts curriculum, making it easy to weave theology into the classroom mix. Most teachers were Catholic and many were priests and nuns.

The ’60s changed all that. In 1966, the American Council on Education issued a study that failed to uncover a single Catholic university with a “distinguished or even strong” graduate department. This prompted Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, a leading American Catholic historian, to suggest a radical consolidation: American Catholics should support no more than three Catholic universities, one on each coast and one in between.

Ellis knew it would never happen, given the independence of each university. Yet his pronouncement prompted a contest among Catholic universities in the hope of surviving the final cut. The rush was on to upgrade faculty and facilities, which meant competing for the best teachers and students regardless of religion. Then there was the Second Vatican Council’s urging Catholics to embrace the modern world. This prompted many priests and nuns to abandon Catholic institutions to work “in the world,” further accelerating the need for lay faculty members. Faculty strikes over academic freedom at Catholic universities led many to turn control over to lay-dominated boards of trustees.

Led by the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, the longtime president of Notre Dame, Catholic educators redefined the relationship between church and university. As Father Hesburgh adroitly put it, a Catholic university is the place “where the church does its thinking.” Learning, in other words, is not indoctrination.

Since those transformative years, the number of Catholic colleges and universities has declined by a third. Some secularized, cutting all ties to the church, in order to survive. Others, especially those for women, closed their doors for lack of applicants. Many more grew through compromise: though nominally Catholic, they offered theology as not much more than a series of selections in a menu of course options.

America can still boast of a monopoly of the world’s best Catholic educational institutions. Some are small liberal-arts colleges that have preserved or reinvented classical Catholic humanism. Others are more sectarian, fashioned in reaction to the demand for orthodoxy by John Paul II. A few universities like Notre Dame (my alma mater) have attained elite status while remaining manifestly Catholic.

I hope Pope Benedict will keep this diversity in mind when tomorrow he discusses the issue of institutional identity. I hope, too, that someone in his entourage will point out that there are more Catholic students at many of the big public universities in the Midwest than at any Catholic college. They are there by choice, their own or that of their parents.

What these students and their teachers need is a vision of what it means to be an educated Catholic, not just a lecture on preserving Catholic institutional identity. If Benedict can manage that, his words will be worth remembering.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Recommended Reading

By Michael Perry

Thomas J. Reese, SJ, former editor of America magazine, is a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.  He writes, in the April 25 issue of Commonweal:

Reforming the Vatican
What the Church Can Learn from Other Institutions

Thomas J. Reese, SJ

Too often when someone proposes the reform of church structures, the reformer is attacked for borrowing from the secular political field, as if this were necessarily a bad thing. But throughout history the Vatican has often imitated the organization of secular political institutions. Today the governance of the church is more centralized than at any time in its history. To make the church more collegial, the Vatican should once again adopt practices of the secular political world.

[What practices does Father Reese recommend that the Vatican adopt?  Click here.

Reese writes, in conclusion:]

These six reforms will not bring about the kingdom of God. No governance structure is perfect, and every reform has negative side effects. But these reforms would help the church follow the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity. It is worth remarking that most of these reforms would mean a return to earlier practices and structures of the church. Of course, spiritual reform and conversion are finally more important than structural reform, but that doesn’t mean that structural reform is unimportant.

What are the chances of such reforms actually taking place? As a social scientist, I’d have to say they’re probably close to zero. The church is now run by a self-perpetuating group of men who know such reform would diminish their power. It is also contrary to their theology of the church. But as a Catholic Christian, I still have to hope.

Recognizing Israel, Recognizing Palestine

By Susan Stabile

MOJ readers in the Twin Cities may be interested in a talk being given tomorrow night at the University of St. Thomas by Fr. David Smith, Professor Emeritus at the UST and founder of the University's Justice and Peace Program.  The title of Fr. Smith's talk is Recognizing Israel, Recognizing Palestine: three months with a peace team in the occupied territories of Palestine.  As the title suggests, Fr. Smith has recently returned from three months in the Middle East and will talk about his experience with the peace team.  The talk, which is free and open to the public, will be at 7:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the John Roach Center at the UST (Summit and Cleveland Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota).

The peace team's reports can be accessed here.  See here for a video of the Bethelehem checkoint on a typical day at 4:00 a.m.

The Compassion Forum (2): Clinton and Obama on Religion in Public Life

By Greg Sisk

During the course of their separate appearances at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania on Sunday evening, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked for their thoughts on the very propriety of the forum itself, devoted as it was to discussion of religion and public life. The contested place of the religious voice in the public square has been a subject of animated debate in both popular and academic circles over the past couple of decades. Many of the members of this Mirror of Justice blog have been leading figures in that important discussion, most prominently our own Michael Perry, whose several books on the subject are essential volumes in any library on religious expression in public life. (In one side-line of my academic writing, I have offered my own thoughts on this subject in the context of what I called the “quintessential religious witness in the public square” of Pope John Paul II (here).)

Was it appropriate to ask presidential candidates to share their views on religious faith and values in public life? While one would not expect politicians to offer reflections that rise to the quality of academic discourse, the responses of the Democratic presidential candidates may be revealing of how this public debate has moved over the years. Vigorously if imperfectly on the part of Senator Obama, and more haltingly on the part of Senator Clinton, their openness to religious participation suggests that we may be witnessing the beginning of a break from what then law professor and now federal judge Michael McConnell identified as a secularist “hold on mainstream thinking” about religion in the elite sectors of American society. The “Naked Public Square,” against which Richard John Neuhaus warned so eloquently many years ago, is becoming better clothed, even among the left-leaning political demographic that had seemed most insistent on denuding the public square of the religious witness.

In yesterday’s post offering my general observations about the candidates’ responses on questions about religious faith at the Compassion Forum, I shared my impression that Senator Clinton more readily and more comfortably connected with the spiritual dimension of faith as central to the lives and identity of so many Americans. Unfortunately, she faltered badly, in my view, on the central question of whether the subject was appropriately raised in the first place. When one of the moderators claimed that “there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with the conversation that we’re having here tonight” and who “believe religion already has way too much influence in political life and public life,” Senator Clinton was immediately solicitous of those objections. She characterized this as “a fair question to ask” and said that she understood “why some people, even religious people, even people of faith might say, why are you having this forum? And why are you exploring these issues from two people who are vying to be president of the United States?” Still, she did conclude that “we want religion to be in the public square,” saying that “[i]f you are a person of faith, you have a right and even an obligation to speak from that well spring of your faith.” But, she insisted, people of faith must “do so in a respectful and inclusive way.”

By responding as she did, Senator Clinton gave considerable credence to the persisting anti-religious impulses of too many in her political party. By stating that it is fair for some to question whether it is proper even to host a forum that allows candidates for the nation’s highest office to share their views on faith and values, she suggested that the exclusionary secularist viewpoint is a legitimate one that deserves consideration, even if on balance but only after careful consideration she had decided to participate in the forum. Reflecting the antipathy to religion in liberal elite circles, Richard Rorty once argued that speaking of religion in the context of public policy should be sharply rebuked as displaying “bad taste” in polite company. While clearly struggling to find a way to do so Sunday evening, and succeeding in other ways, Clinton seemed unable to completely shake off a similar aesthetic discomfort with the topic.

In sum, in this passage from the forum, Senator Clinton offered a less than enthusiastic invitation to people of faith to participate in the public square and indeed set out terms by demanding that they do so in a “respectful and inclusive way.” While most of us desire to be as respectful and inclusive as possible in expressing our religious (and non-religious) views, short of compromising our principles, Clinton did not suggest a similar qualification on participatory rights for anyone else engaging in public discourse.

In contrast, Senator Obama began his response to the same question by rejecting those “elements, many of them in my own party, in the Democratic Party, that believe that any influence of religion whatsoever in the public debate somehow is problematic or violates church and state.” Instead, he explained, “[w]hat I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith.” Obama continued: “And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God.” Yes, it is unfortunate that Senator Obama felt obliged to toss out the canard that Republicans would abolish separation of church and state (in a passage not quoted above) and that he self-referentially cited his own writings about the essentiality of religious references to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights movement (in the passage quoted above), instead of giving credit to such scholars as Stephen Carter who brought that point front and center in our modern public debate about religion in public life. Nonetheless, and importantly, Senator Obama offered a ringing endorsement of religious participation in the public square and did not hesitate to separate himself from the secular exclusionists.

Unfortunately, after having done so, Obama too felt obliged to suggest special constraints on the religious voice, saying that, in the public square, we have to “translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everyone.” As with Senator Clinton, Obama did not explain why people of faith are required to speak in a different voice, one that is “universal” and “appeals to everyone” before being heard. And having just defended the use of openly religious references, Obama’s insistence that religious language be translated into a universal style was somewhat contradictory. As Obama’s closing remarks in response to this question suggest, his concern apparently is to preclude “a certain self-righteousness,” as when a speaker implies he has “got a direct line to God,” a claim that Obama characterized as “incompatible with democracy.” But by thereby carving out forthright claims of religious truth from discourse that is appropriate for the public square, isn’t Obama’s invitation to people of faith significantly limited? Dr. King certainly claimed Biblical sanction for his views about the equality of all people. Nor, as Obama said should be expected of people of faith, did Dr. King "allow that we may be wrong" in thinking people of color were entitled to fundamental human rights.

While both Senators Obama and Clinton said that they welcomed the religious voice in the public square, and Obama did so in forceful terms, they also felt obliged to suggest that religious participation should be controlled and constrained, in a manner that we do not demand of others. Stephen Carter once wrote that a “cultural discomfort” emerges “when citizens who are moved by their religious understanding demand to be heard on issues of public moment and yet are not content either to remain silent about their religions or to limit themselves to acceptable platitudes.” By demanding “inclusive” or “universal” language or warding against claims of God-given truth as “incompatible with democracy,” is the Obama and Clinton invitation to people of faith effectively conditioned upon their willingness to utter “acceptable platitudes”? I don’t think either of them, and Obama in particular, mean to be so restrictive. But they appear conflicted in their instincts and have not yet thought through what it would mean to regard people of faith as first-class citizens in the public square. And neither Clinton nor Obama appears to be comfortable with what Stephen Carter referred to as the role of “prophetic religious activism,” observing as he did that “[t]he religious voice at its more pure is the voice of the witness.” But maybe that's to be expected. Clinton and Obama are politicians seeking power, and politicians seeking power are seldom comfortable with prophets.

In the next day or two, I’ll move from observations about the general subjects of religious faith in personal and public life as addressed at the Compassion Forum and offer my comments on how the candidates responded to questions about abortion and the sanctity of human life, which sadly if not unexpectedly was the nadir of the evening.

Greg Sisk

The Pope and the Would-Be Presidents

By Rick Garnett

I agree with Michael, certainly, that it is "worth pondering" Mr. Nichols'  suggestion that President Bush "might want to listen to what this particular pope has to say about global warming, fighting poverty and, above all, promoting peace", and should not merely use this visit to "bask in the papal glow."  Does Mr. Nichols think -- if he doesn't, I think it is worth pondering why he does not -- that Sen. Obama, etc., (who issued a gracious welcome message to the Pope) ought not to merely "bask in the papal glow" (around his own environmental proposals, for example) and should, instead, "listen to what this particular pope has to say about" prioritizing an abortion-on-demand regime that cannot even admit of a ban on partial-birth abortion or a requirement to save children who manage to survive abortions?

The Pope and the President

By Michael Perry

A friend of MOJ sent me this.  (From The Nation, 4/15/08.]  Certainly worth pondering!

The Pope and the President
by John Nichols

   George Bush is certainly not the first American president to try
   and take advantage of a timely papal meeting to advance himself and
   his agenda.

   Pope Benedict XVI, who arrives today for a high-profile visit to the
   United States, took his name from Pope Benedict XV, who consulted
   with Woodrow Wilson when the 28th president was touring Europe with
   the purpose of promoting a League of Nations.

   Bush has no such grand design.

   The current president is merely hoping that – by greeting the
   current Pope Benedict at Andrews Air Force Base, inviting 12,000
   people to an outdoor reception with the pontiff and then hosting a
   Bavarian dinner for the visitor from the Vatican – his own dismal
   approval ratings might be improved by association with a reasonably
   popular religious leader.

   The initiative has been somewhat complicated by the fact that Pope
   Benedict will not attend the dinner.

   But that won’t stop Bush by attempting to bask in the papal glow.

   Perhaps the president should try a different approach.

   Instead of posing with the pontiff he might want to listen to what
   this particular pope has to say about global warming, fighting
   poverty and, above all, promoting peace.

   No one is going to confuse Pope Benedict with the caricature of
   a liberal.

   But the pontiff has made the Vatican a leader is seeking to address
   climate change. Under this pope’s leadership, the Vatican announced
   that it would become the world's first carbon-neutral state.

   He has said that the leaders of the world must do much more to feed
   the poor, fight disease and support the interests of workers rather
   than the bottom lines of corporations.

   And he has bluntly said that Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq and the
   subsequent occupation of that country does not follow the Catholic
   doctrine of a “just war.”

   Before the invasion, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked whether
   the attack might be considered morally justified under the just-war
   standard. “Certainly not,” he replied, explaining that "the damage
   would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

   After the war began, Cardinal Ratzinger said of the global protest
   movement to prevent the attack: "it was right to resist the war and
   its threats of destruction.”

   Rejecting arguments made by the president and many of his supporters
   that the United States needed to take the lead, this pope argued, “It
   should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make
   decisions for the world."

   It is not secret that George Bush has trouble taking the counsel of
   those who do not tell him what he wants to hear.

   But if this president wants to associate himself with the pope, he
   should begin by listening to the man who has said, "There were not
   sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of
   the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions
   that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking
   ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a
   'just war.'"

   Of course, no rational observer is going to think that George Bush
   will be led by Pope Benedict XVI to pacifism. But Bush cannot claim
   to be taking this papal visit seriously if he will not even entertain
   a discussion of just and unjust wars.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Clinton, Obama, and the Compassion Forum: Impressions From an Outsider

By Greg Sisk

Last evening, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential candidates, appeared at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania to address matters of faith, values, and public policy. Today, the news media has focused on the latest name-calling between these two candidates — one being called an "Annie Oakley" wannabe and the other a San Francisco "elitist "(and as a Republican I am tempted to think that both may be right). Even when acknowledging the event, the New York Times felt obliged to begin its account by reporting that the candidates “exchang[ed] frosty glances Sunday night as their paths briefly crossed on stage.” As a consequence, very little attention has been given to the fascinating, and sometimes deeply substantive, discussion about faith and life and politics that unfolded in Pennsylvania last night. Given that this blog is devoted to religion in public life, I have presumed to attempt to fill in some of the gap with my personal impressions of this exceptional episode in American political life.

Now some might cynically dismiss last night’s forum as nothing more than another political event, and one that was carefully staged to arrest the Democratic Party’s declining support among people of faith in recent years. Of course, the forum was a political event, constructed around the ongoing race for the presidential nomination and featuring the two surviving candidates in one party. Nonetheless, I think a fair observer should acknowledge that this forum, both as it was planned and as it developed last night, was something more than a grimy campaign operation engineered to score political points.

Instead, persons of all faiths and political backgrounds should be encouraged that this great political party has begun to recognize the electoral folly of aggressive secularism and is taking considered steps to display greater respect for persons who take religious faith seriously. Through the largely balanced questions posed by the moderators and religious leaders in the audience, and the good faith (pun intended) cooperation of the two candidates who appeared, the forum well-served the purpose of exploring the religious sensibilities of the candidates and their views on the role of religious faith in public life. And for those of us who study religion and public life, it certainly was compelling television.

After watching the forum last night, and reviewing the transcript today, I offer below some observations from the perspective of an outsider. Because both of these candidates have long since disqualified themselves from receiving my own vote this November (on the sanctity of human life, genuine educational reform as the greatest engine for social progress, the necessity of free trade to world economic health, etc.), I have no dog in the ongoing and increasingly rough and tumble fight for the Democratic Party nomination. And while the conventional wisdom until a month ago had been that Senator Obama would be the more formidable opponent to Senator McCain this fall, prognostications have become considerably muddier in recent weeks and neither appears better positioned today against the Republican candidate. The thoughts that follow are openly impressionistic, which may be appropriate for a forum that was somewhat touchy-feely in nature (and I mean that in a good way).

In a departure from prior candidate meetings, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared separately last night, offering their thoughts at greater length, without interruption, and with less of a need to play one-upmanship on the other candidate. They responded to questions in a conversational manner, moving more easily from one subject to the next and following up with additional pertinent thoughts that later occurred to them. They each spoke about how faith has been present in their lives, sustained them in times of difficulty, affects the manner in which they make decisions, and influences their public policy positions. While face-to-face debates between political candidates serve an essential purpose in identifying the central issues, sharpening the differences, and testing the candidate’s ability to perform under pressure, last evening's more tranquil and dignified venue was a refreshing change and was especially well-tailored to the nature and content of this forum.

As someone who has not generally held a positive view of Senator Clinton’s personality over the years, I was surprised to find myself captivated by, drawn into, and even moved by passages of her narrative. She left that positive impression on me, not only through her words, which were well chosen but do not read as especially eloquent in the transcript printed today. Rather, I was taken with her calm and open demeanor, friendly and yet dignified exchange with moderators and questioners, and earnestness when speaking. Between the two, Clinton appeared more comfortable in addressing the personal dimension of faith, even as she attempted (admirably in my view) to shift the discussion away from a focus on herself to relate how she had been moved by the faith of others. Indeed, her stories about other people of powerful faith were most attractive and revealed a comfort in sharing the spiritual limelight with others. Telling the story of a woman whose son and grandson were murdered on the streets of Philadelphia, Clinton said that this person knows “God is with her,” even while not understanding why these tragedies have happened. “Determined to be the person that she believes God meant her to be,” this woman rises each day with “a smile on her face to go to her daycare business,” which Clinton aptly describes as a “moment of grace.”

By contrast, while certainly not visibly nervous, Senator Obama struck me as awkward of speech and manner at several points during the evening, appearing to struggle to find the right words. He also tended more often than Clinton to fall back on sound bites or pre-packaged themes from his campaign (although neither candidate went too far astray from the subject at hand). Perhaps this measure of uneasiness reflected his self-consciousness about these sensitive questions given the criticism he has received in recent days about some of his less than sensitive statements about people of faith. Fearing that he would step on another land-mine, Obama may have been unduly cautious, thus leaving an impression of less than complete comfort. While I found Senator Clinton to be personally inviting and thoughtful, Senator Obama came across to me as sometimes leaden in his expression, gamely trying hard but not quite succeeding in finding the right voice for the occasion. Please understand I do not mean to say that he made any serious mistakes or faltered badly, or that he failed to make significant contributions to the discourse. Rather, I found that he was simply unremarkable, not manifesting the confidence and eloquence that has regularly been on display when he speaks before an approving crowd at a campaign rally.

On substance, both candidates spoke to the importance and support of personal faith and to how their faith influences their political views. Neither faith nor works were neglected by either. That being said, their faith narrative varied markedly in emphasis. Senator Clinton spoke more directly to the importance of personal faith for the individual within a community of believers, that is, to faith for its own sake. Senator Obama focused more on the “social Gospel” of church-connected social service and political activities. Thus, Clinton began by saying how she had “felt the presence of God in my life” since her childhood and saying that “I don’t think I could have made my life’s journey without being anchored in God’s grace and without having that, you know, sense of forgiveness and unconditional love.” By contrast, Obama moved immediately to speaking about political organizing and political topics, saying “I am a devout Christian, that I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago, that nobody in a presidential campaign on the Democratic side in recent memory has done more to reach out to the church and talk about, what are our obligations religiously, in terms of doing good works, and how does that inform our politics?” Indeed, Obama explained that he had been drawn to church through “the social gospel, the need to act and not just sit in the pews.”

Immediately following the forum, the instant pundits also identified this difference in focus, which they saw as to the advantage of Obama. They opined that Obama had succeeded by speaking more directly about how his church involvement and political activities were intertwined. In my view, these commentators miss the point yet again and fail to apprehend how these contrasting approaches to discussion of faith are likely to be received by most people of faith. For most people of faith, the transcendent reality lies in the faith itself, bringing about a transformative relationship with God. For Catholics, faith is centered on salvation through Christ, renewed through the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To think of faith as a primarily a tool for social services and political platform positions is to mistake the effect for the cause. While the Democratic Party has lost ground with people of faith in part because of its political positions on social issues that are antithetical to orthodox or traditional values, its principal error has been a tone-deafness about the central role of a vibrant faith in the lives, the very identity, of many people. Certain core political issues certainly matter to people of faith and may be central to electoral choices. But one must begin by understanding the person as a person of faith before moving directly to the political. In my view, Clinton better connected with the traditional sense of religious faith during the forum. While by no means ignoring that personal faith dimension, Obama devoted his primary attention to the political implications. I think that's a meaningful difference, and one that may resonate.

As it appeared to me as someone not present but watching carefully on television, the atmosphere in the auditorium also changed between the two appearances, in a manner somewhat parallel to the different emphases on dimensions of religious faith. During Senator Clinton’s session, the audience appeared very attentive, was respectful and quiet, as they carefully and sympathetically considered her words. Applause was restrained, from the moment of Clinton’s entrance and throughout her dialogue with her interlocutors. The room was quiet, almost reverential at points. I had the feeling, or at least that was the disposition I was surprised to find in myself, that people were captivated with Clinton’s narrative about her own faith and about the faith she has found in others. They wanted to listen and were reluctant to intrude.

By contrast, when Obama entered the room, his supporters not only loudly applauded but boisterously cheered his entry, while he glad-handed down the aisle. The more demonstrative nature of Obama’s supporters in the crowd, occasionally breaking into the conversation with applause, was sometimes jarring to me. Moreover, I had the impression that Obama sensed it as well, as he appeared on more than one occasion to frown when the dialogue was interrupted by applause, perhaps appreciating that this animated political style was out of place in this dignified and thoughtful setting for careful reflection on faith and values. Rather than drawing energy from the applause, Obama sometimes appears unsettled by it and became more halting in his answer immediately afterward. Or so it seemed to me. The very fact that the candidates appeared separately and were able to develop their answers at greater length, without the need for a snappy and aggressive back-and-forth with an opponent, presumably was designed to break the political rhythm and allow for thoughtful engagement. Obama's supporters in the crowd appeared unable to depart from a rally style and adapt to this alternative venue.

Interestingly, my substantative reaction to the candidates’ views on the propriety of even having such a forum was nearly the mirror-opposite of my impressions of their religious faith narratives. Moreover, I was greatly disappointed and even alarmed by the clumsy and evasive remarks by each on the most important human rights issue of our time, the sanctity of unborn human life. But closing this over-length posting for now, I’ll save commentary on these other points for separate posts in the next couple of days.

Greg Sisk

Another St. Thomas Speaker Kerfuffle

By Thomas Berg

There is developing blogosphere commentary over the recent decision by a University of St. Thomas administrator to reject an April 21 on-campus speaking event with Star Parker, pro-life activist, who would speak about "the harmful impact of abortion, especially in minority communities."  The speech would have been sponsored by the University's Students for Human Life and the conservative Young America's Foundation.  From everything I can tell, this is another misguided decision by University administration to reject a speaker based on greatly exaggerated fears about disturbances, or about inflammatory speech that might be inconsistent with the University's mission.  (See here, e.g., for a statement last fall criticizing the University's decision, later reversed, to refuse an invitation to Abp. Tutu -- who coincidentally spoke in the Twin Cities last Friday at the event in question, which in the end was not held at St. Thomas.)  Hopefully, criticisms of this decision, as of that one, will lead to a reversal.

Tom

Obama's Catholic Advisors

By Michael Perry

HT:  americamagazine.org

Obama Announces Catholic Advisors

Posted at: 2008-04-12 17:56:00.0
Author: James Martin, S.J.

Today Senator Barack Obama announced his national Catholic advisory committee. The names are a fascinating mix of, well, Catholics--and include some regular and recent America contributors, like Mary Jo Bane, Lisa Cahill, Richard Gaillardetz, Cathy Kaveny and David O'Brien. And congratulations to Grant Gallicho, associate editor at our sister (brother?) publication, Commonweal. But what, no Jesuits? Maybe I should reconsider my possible vote. (By the way, if anyone wants to contribute to us Senator Clinton's or Senator McCain's list, we'd be happy to include it.)

Here's Obama's Catholic Kitchen Cabinet:

National Co-Chairs

Senator Bob Casey;
Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08);
Former Congressman Tim Roemer, President of the Center for National Policy;
Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas;
Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia;
Tom Chabolla, Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union;
Victoria Reggie Kennedy, President, Common Sense About Kids and Guns;
Sr. Jamie Phelps, O.P., Professor of Theology, Xavier University;
Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Congregation of St. Joseph.

National Steering Committee

Mary Jo Bane, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School;
Nicholas P. Cafardi, Catholic Author and Scholar, Pittsburgh, PA;
Lisa Cahill, Professor of Theology, Boston College;
M. Shawn Copeland, Associate Professor of Theology, Boston College;
Ron Cruz, Leadership Development Consultant, Burke, VA;
Sharon Daly, Social Justice Advocate, Knoxville, MD;
Richard Gaillardetz, Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies, University of Toledo;
Grant Gallicho, Associate Editor, Commonweal Magazine;
Sr. Margaret Gannon, IHM, Scranton, PA;
Don Guter, Judge Advocate General of the Navy (2000-2002); Rear Admiral, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Pittsburgh, PA;
Cathleen Kaveny, Professor of Law and Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame;
Jim Kesteloot, President and Executive Director, Chicago Lighthouse;
Vincent Miller, Associate Professor of Theology, Georgetown University.

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive